5 ms·

> Maybe the bad guys are really bad, but sometimes I hope that they get off just to make the point that the cops are suppose to do the "right thing", otherwise

> Maybe the bad guys are really bad, but sometimes I hope that they get off just to make the point that the cops are suppose to do the "right thing", otherwise the cops really are the bad guys The US way is to exclude evidence and protect the cops--the idea being that cops have no motive to cross lines if they can't use the evidence. More and more I'm leaning towards what I understand is the European way: let the evidence stand, but hold the cops accountable for their actions through parallel civil and criminal proceedings. The feedback for "cop behavior" is direct vs indirect.

baseballmerpeak 11y ago
Let unconstitutionally acquired exidence stand? No, let's not let the abuses of a government stand, as we should also go after its agents.
- afarrell 11y ago
  But this is in fact what we do http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  The constitutionality of actions used to obtain evidence is completely independent of the truth of the defendants guilt or innocence. If the actions are bad, actually prosecute the actions in non-kangaroo proceedings. A) let the abuses of a government stand B) go after its agents In the US we have neither A nor B.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The Constitution restricts what government may do against individuals. Perhaps the agents that break the rules should be held individually accountable in more cases than they currently are (though, as with most cases of using law to provide accountability for executive agents, there are agency problems that make that unlikely to be effective in many important cases), but that should not be an excuse to void the purpose of the restrictions, which is to limit the power of government, not just its agents individually. The government cannot be allowed to benefit from the it's unconstitutional acts while certain agents are punished as scapegoats.
    - fluidcruft 11y ago
      Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too.
      - Retric 11y ago
        While I don't normally think in terms of slippery slope arguments, this would easily fall into such territory. After all how hard would it be to prosecute a cop whose illegal evidence goes a serial killer off the street? Give it a generation or two and we would end up with cops who only get convicted of the worst breaches, and effectively zero constitutional protection.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too. When the power of the executive branch of government is being used as the means seek something, its always about the Constitutional limits on government. No matter what you feel you deserve, the Constitution is the deal by which the outer bounds of the scope of your privilege to have the coercive power of government deployed to get you what you deserve is limited. Government shouldn't get to escape the Constitutional limits on its application of power against those subject to it because "think of the victims of crime", or "think of the children", or "think of..." whatever else. Otherwise, we're tossing out the concept of limited government in favor of arbitrary power.
        fluidcruft 11y ago
        You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the tasks we ask of it. I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the overall goals are lost and the balance of penalties is wrong. When the government goofs, we let the criminal go and deny the victims justice. The purpose of the justice system is justice. The focus on these microtransactions elevates government as the definition of justice which seems much more expansive than the alternative, IMHO.
- MCRed 11y ago
  "We" don't get to go after its agents, only Prosecutors, and investigatory agencies (like the police) get to "go after" them. And if you look at the history of crimes committed by government employees you see that in almost all cases they are never prosecuted. This is the fundamental problem with government justice-- it will never hold its own people accountable. The few examples of this happening pale in comparison to the rampant corruption and crime going on, everything from fraudulent warrants to destroying evidence to violating peoples rights and malicious prosecution. Look at Aaron Swartz for example. The problem is that people are gullible enough that they think that "the law is the law" when in practice it is people that make the law more than just paper. And the incentives for the government judiciary are to cut corners, violate rights and protect their own.
yock 11y ago
Why let the evidence stand? Shouldn't it be preferable to exclude the illegally-obtained evidence and punish the police for obtaining it illegally?
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  I think it depends on whether you think justice should seek truth or some sort of malleable truth theater. Causing an actual criminal go unpunished when extremely convincing evidence of guilt is known (but concealed from the jury) only further harms the victims.
  - yock 11y ago
    Illegally-obtained evidence shouldn't be inadmissible just because it was obtained illegally, but because it is co-mingled with the motives of the official who broke the law to obtain it. You can't possibly know if the evidence is even reliable and accurate because it could just as easily be fabricated to further those illegal motives.
BurningFrog 11y ago
As a European, I get a little twitchy whenever people talk about how things are in "Europe", since it is an extremely diverse collection of countries that very little is universally true about aside from their location. That said, I can confirm that in Sweden, any verifiable information is allowed in a trial. This fits with the idea that a trial is an attempt to find the truth. Swedish prosecutors are also obliged to seek out and present all objective facts, including those that argues for the accused.

baseballmerpeak 11y ago

Let unconstitutionally acquired exidence stand? No, let's not let the abuses of a government stand, as we should also go after its agents.

afarrell 11y ago
But this is in fact what we do http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585
fluidcruft 11y ago
The constitutionality of actions used to obtain evidence is completely independent of the truth of the defendants guilt or innocence. If the actions are bad, actually prosecute the actions in non-kangaroo proceedings. A) let the abuses of a government stand B) go after its agents In the US we have neither A nor B.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The Constitution restricts what government may do against individuals. Perhaps the agents that break the rules should be held individually accountable in more cases than they currently are (though, as with most cases of using law to provide accountability for executive agents, there are agency problems that make that unlikely to be effective in many important cases), but that should not be an excuse to void the purpose of the restrictions, which is to limit the power of government, not just its agents individually. The government cannot be allowed to benefit from the it's unconstitutional acts while certain agents are punished as scapegoats.
  - fluidcruft 11y ago
    Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too.
    - Retric 11y ago
      While I don't normally think in terms of slippery slope arguments, this would easily fall into such territory. After all how hard would it be to prosecute a cop whose illegal evidence goes a serial killer off the street? Give it a generation or two and we would end up with cops who only get convicted of the worst breaches, and effectively zero constitutional protection.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too. When the power of the executive branch of government is being used as the means seek something, its always about the Constitutional limits on government. No matter what you feel you deserve, the Constitution is the deal by which the outer bounds of the scope of your privilege to have the coercive power of government deployed to get you what you deserve is limited. Government shouldn't get to escape the Constitutional limits on its application of power against those subject to it because "think of the victims of crime", or "think of the children", or "think of..." whatever else. Otherwise, we're tossing out the concept of limited government in favor of arbitrary power.
      - fluidcruft 11y ago
        You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the tasks we ask of it. I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the overall goals are lost and the balance of penalties is wrong. When the government goofs, we let the criminal go and deny the victims justice. The purpose of the justice system is justice. The focus on these microtransactions elevates government as the definition of justice which seems much more expansive than the alternative, IMHO.
MCRed 11y ago
"We" don't get to go after its agents, only Prosecutors, and investigatory agencies (like the police) get to "go after" them. And if you look at the history of crimes committed by government employees you see that in almost all cases they are never prosecuted. This is the fundamental problem with government justice-- it will never hold its own people accountable. The few examples of this happening pale in comparison to the rampant corruption and crime going on, everything from fraudulent warrants to destroying evidence to violating peoples rights and malicious prosecution. Look at Aaron Swartz for example. The problem is that people are gullible enough that they think that "the law is the law" when in practice it is people that make the law more than just paper. And the incentives for the government judiciary are to cut corners, violate rights and protect their own.

yock 11y ago

Why let the evidence stand? Shouldn't it be preferable to exclude the illegally-obtained evidence and punish the police for obtaining it illegally?

fluidcruft 11y ago
I think it depends on whether you think justice should seek truth or some sort of malleable truth theater. Causing an actual criminal go unpunished when extremely convincing evidence of guilt is known (but concealed from the jury) only further harms the victims.
- yock 11y ago
  Illegally-obtained evidence shouldn't be inadmissible just because it was obtained illegally, but because it is co-mingled with the motives of the official who broke the law to obtain it. You can't possibly know if the evidence is even reliable and accurate because it could just as easily be fabricated to further those illegal motives.

BurningFrog 11y ago

As a European, I get a little twitchy whenever people talk about how things are in "Europe", since it is an extremely diverse collection of countries that very little is universally true about aside from their location. That said, I can confirm that in Sweden, any verifiable information is allowed in a trial. This fits with the idea that a trial is an attempt to find the truth. Swedish prosecutors are also obliged to seek out and present all objective facts, including those that argues for the accused.