3 ms·
IMO all sufficiently reliable evidence should be admissible but illegitimate collection of evidence (e.g. illegal searches) should be punished more severely. A
by pluma 10y ago
IMO all sufficiently reliable evidence should be admissible but illegitimate collection of evidence (e.g. illegal searches) should be punished more severely.
AIUI the German court system superficially also considers illegitimately obtained evidence inadmissible but has provisions that allow case-by-case decisions to be made in consideration of the severity of the crime. I think that is far more reasonable.
Imagine the classic crime drama scenario: a suspected serial killer is being interrogated by the police, the officer beats him up (breaking the law) to make him talk after exhausting all legal options. The killer reveals truthful information that helps locating the final victim and severely incriminates him.
If I understand the two systems correctly, under the US system the evidence would be inadmissible, even if it proved perpetrator's knowledge (which may be a major factor in proving his guilt). Under the German system the evidence might be considered because although it was gained illegally it is crucial to the case and the crime was so severe. In either case they officer should face severe consequences (though IMO likely not severe enough).
There was actually a situation similar to this in Germany a few years back: a police officer tortured a suspect to make him talk. I think he was thought to have abducted a child that was at the risk of dying. I'm not sure how it worked out but it sparked a similar discussion in German media about the ethics of the situation (with the general consensus being that the behaviour was blatantly illegal even if it may have saved a life).
- detaro 10y agoI think you mean the Daschner-case in your last paragraph, if so, small correction: He only threatened the suspect with torture and didn't actually do it, and reported himself for doing so. He was sentenced very mildly, but the court made clear that there was no way for it to be legal.
- chopin 10y agoIn addition, the confession was inadmissible. It needed a second confession (during the trial) to be admissible in court.
- 1_2__3 10y agoIllegally collected evidence is by its definition not reliable.
- pluma 10y agoNot really. There are reliable ways to collect evidence that might still be illegal. For example it might be illegal to search a diplomat in the same way as would be legal for an ordinary civilian. But there's no obvious reason why evidence gathered from a non-permissible search would be less reliable than from a permissible one by default. Likewise although it is true that torture is not a good means of gathering intelligence or extracting confessions (because there's a clear incentive for people to make up things just to stop the suffering) if the information can be verified it could still reasonably be considered evidence that the tortured person possessed perpetrator's knowledge. "Evidence" is never absolute. Even if you have a video recording of a suspect shooting and killing a victim and then walking into police custody that's still not a 100% guarantee. Evidence is however cumulative (beyond a certain threshold anyway). You rarely base a conviction on a single piece of evidence alone.