Is procedural justice important or result justice important?

According to the automatic confession of the suspect, the police found the place where the suspect was buried and cracked the case. However, the police forgot to read the Miranda warning when arresting the suspect. In order to maintain procedural justice, it is necessary to exclude the confession of the suspect and the physical evidence such as the body obtained from the confession. However, this is not the case. This slight damage to procedural justice should not be a reason to condone the murderer. There is no need for substantive justice to sacrifice too much for a little procedural justice.

The police obtained the confession by threatening the relatives of the suspect and solved the case, so the confession of the suspect will be excluded, because the loss of procedural justice is too great, the police may do the same thing in order to solve the case, and the substantive rights of ordinary people may be damaged, so it is necessary to sacrifice the substantive justice of this case. China's criminal procedure law adopts a realistic attitude, and serious illegal means of obtaining evidence can be eliminated, and defective means of obtaining evidence can be supplemented. For example, 1 package of drugs was found on the suspect, and there was physical evidence of drugs when it was submitted to the court, but there was no seizure record at the scene, which could not prove whether it was planted. This is illegal evidence collection and should be ruled out. For another example, two packets of drugs were found on criminals, and the physical evidence submitted to the court was two packets, while the record seized at the scene was 1 packet, and the prosecutor needed to investigate further. It used to be the seal issued by the police, but now it's not working. You need to apply for the police to testify in court, and it's not enough to have police testimony. There may be other evidence to prove it, otherwise this package of drugs will be ruled out. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has experienced the trade-offs and different tendencies between substantive justice and procedural justice. Warren's court period emphasized procedural justice and individual rights, while rehnquist's court period tilted in the opposite direction.

This well-known question that has been debated shows that this balance between procedural justice and substantive justice is necessary: a terrorist makes a bomb in a city to kill thousands of people, and you catch this terrorist, can you torture him to tell where the bomb is? Can you torture his daughter and tell him where the bomb is?