4 ms·

Are you suggesting evidence should be presentable to the court so long as the judge/just know it was illegally gained and the officer fired? If so, this is to

Are you suggesting evidence should be presentable to the court so long as the judge/just know it was illegally gained and the officer fired? If so, this is to me is an absurd conclusion.

scotty79 10y ago
Why is that? The purpose of evidence is to help determine the truth. How the legality of how evidence was obtained affects its validity? Those two things should be independent. If policeman obtained evidence illegally but it's still good evidence (not planted for example) then it shouldn't be ignored. Policeman should be prosecuted for breaching the law that specifies how evidences can be obtained and punished, but that's separate case.
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  For me at least, I think we are on shaky ground when we start accepting the 'evidence' as true/valid when we know it was gained illegally. Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away. In this case also, surely the crime committed is against his girlfriend, who herself can go to the police and make charges against him. I appreciate in domestic abuse cases this is hard, but this is how it needs to be done to maintain any trust in the legal process. The guy is clearly a disturbed specimen and needs rehabilitation.
  - paulhilbert 10y ago
    "Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away" Pretty much all Europeans - the legality of evidence here is only refused in very intense cases (read: torture). And it works quite well tbh...
    - alex_hitchins 10y ago
      I would be interested to hear of any cases where in-admissable evidence is deemed admissable for the purposes of finding someone guilty. As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >for the purposes of finding someone guilty Also for finding someone innocent. You forgot that. >As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue. Because its drawbacks are?
        alex_hitchins 10y ago
        >>for the purposes of finding someone guilty >Also for finding someone innocent. You forgot that. True, some people may want to break the law to gain evidence to support someones defense. I have a gut feeling this is going to be in the minority of cases. >>As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue. >Because its drawbacks are? It's drawbacks are mainly being that it would be a massive retrograde step.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away. The very idea is that the rulebook is NOT thrown away. Illegally getting evidence is still punished. It's just that said evidence remains evidence. And what does "Who knows what evidence can be collected" mean? Is there a bad kind of evidence when it comes to the truth of a situation? Especially video evidence?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The very idea is that the rulebook is NOT thrown away. I think you misunderstand what the rulebook is. The most basic "rulebook" in the US, and the one on which the exclusionary rule is founded -- the Constitution of the United States -- does not limit the actions of individual government agents, it limits the power of government. If you allow the government to use evidenced gathered outside of that rulebook, but punish government agents, you are, indeed, throwing out the rulebook, and the entire idea of limited government. A central idea of the US system of government is that preventing tyranny by unbound government is more important than punishing individual wrongdoers in the criminal justice system.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Help me understand how the exclusionary rule follows directly from the Constitution. We are one of the few western countries to have it; it's an idiosyncratic response to the problem it addresses.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Help me understand how the exclusionary rule follows directly from the Constitution. Without the exclusionary rule, not only would the people not be secure in the persons and property from unreasonable searches and seizure (an ideal which is impossible to attain, though obviously necessary to strive forward under the Constitution) but would be deprived, by government, of life, liberty, and property -- through the criminal process -- without due process of law, insofar as they would deprived of such as a direct result of government exercising powers which are strictly and expressly outside of those permitted to it. > We are one of the few western countries to have it; it's an idiosyncratic response to the problem it addresses. The United States is unusual in the world (including among "western countries") in the degree to which limited government is a foundational principle. Even other countries with a strong attachment to the idea of fundamental rights often have strong foundational attachment to ideas of governmental (e.g., parliamentary) sovereignty and supremacy, with boundaries of rights and limitations on actions of government agents being determined through the regular legislative process and not being fundamental limits on government.
coldtea 10y ago
>Are you suggesting evidence should be presentable to the court so long as the judge/just know it was illegally gained and the officer fired? I'm suggesting something like video evidence of a person committing a crime should be presentable to the court whether illegally obtained or not. It IS evidence of the crime after all, in the dictionary, common, sense. Now, if the video was indeed obtained illegally, then that's another, unrelated to the case on trial, issue, and can be tried separately, have the officer fired or fined, etc. The idea is very simple: we don't want the police illegally obtaining video (so we discourage that), but in case there is one and it proves a person's innocence or guilt, we might as well use it at the same time. Sounds perfectly logical to me. The idea that: we throw video evidence that a man is innocent and let him get the death penalty, or we throw video that a man killed 5 people and let him get off, because we want to discourage the police from getting video evidence illegally, sounds totally illogical. There are other ways to discourage the police from doing so in the general case, without throwing away perfectly good evidence if it's available in a particular case. Of course I'm not an American, and so I was not accustomed from a young age on what should and should not be held as evidence, and what is the supposed one and only way to go about such things.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  I'm not sure its possible for evidence demonstrating innocence to be obtained illegally, since it would usually be obtained and presented by the defense.

Are you suggesting evidence should be presentable to the court so long as the judge/just know it was illegally gained and the officer fired? If so, this is to me is an absurd conclusion.

scotty79 10y ago

Why is that? The purpose of evidence is to help determine the truth. How the legality of how evidence was obtained affects its validity? Those two things should be independent. If policeman obtained evidence illegally but it's still good evidence (not planted for example) then it shouldn't be ignored. Policeman should be prosecuted for breaching the law that specifies how evidences can be obtained and punished, but that's separate case.

alex_hitchins 10y ago
For me at least, I think we are on shaky ground when we start accepting the 'evidence' as true/valid when we know it was gained illegally. Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away. In this case also, surely the crime committed is against his girlfriend, who herself can go to the police and make charges against him. I appreciate in domestic abuse cases this is hard, but this is how it needs to be done to maintain any trust in the legal process. The guy is clearly a disturbed specimen and needs rehabilitation.
- paulhilbert 10y ago
  "Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away" Pretty much all Europeans - the legality of evidence here is only refused in very intense cases (read: torture). And it works quite well tbh...
  - alex_hitchins 10y ago
    I would be interested to hear of any cases where in-admissable evidence is deemed admissable for the purposes of finding someone guilty. As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >for the purposes of finding someone guilty Also for finding someone innocent. You forgot that. >As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue. Because its drawbacks are?
      - alex_hitchins 10y ago
        >>for the purposes of finding someone guilty >Also for finding someone innocent. You forgot that. True, some people may want to break the law to gain evidence to support someones defense. I have a gut feeling this is going to be in the minority of cases. >>As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue. >Because its drawbacks are? It's drawbacks are mainly being that it would be a massive retrograde step.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away. The very idea is that the rulebook is NOT thrown away. Illegally getting evidence is still punished. It's just that said evidence remains evidence. And what does "Who knows what evidence can be collected" mean? Is there a bad kind of evidence when it comes to the truth of a situation? Especially video evidence?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The very idea is that the rulebook is NOT thrown away. I think you misunderstand what the rulebook is. The most basic "rulebook" in the US, and the one on which the exclusionary rule is founded -- the Constitution of the United States -- does not limit the actions of individual government agents, it limits the power of government. If you allow the government to use evidenced gathered outside of that rulebook, but punish government agents, you are, indeed, throwing out the rulebook, and the entire idea of limited government. A central idea of the US system of government is that preventing tyranny by unbound government is more important than punishing individual wrongdoers in the criminal justice system.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Help me understand how the exclusionary rule follows directly from the Constitution. We are one of the few western countries to have it; it's an idiosyncratic response to the problem it addresses.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Help me understand how the exclusionary rule follows directly from the Constitution. Without the exclusionary rule, not only would the people not be secure in the persons and property from unreasonable searches and seizure (an ideal which is impossible to attain, though obviously necessary to strive forward under the Constitution) but would be deprived, by government, of life, liberty, and property -- through the criminal process -- without due process of law, insofar as they would deprived of such as a direct result of government exercising powers which are strictly and expressly outside of those permitted to it. > We are one of the few western countries to have it; it's an idiosyncratic response to the problem it addresses. The United States is unusual in the world (including among "western countries") in the degree to which limited government is a foundational principle. Even other countries with a strong attachment to the idea of fundamental rights often have strong foundational attachment to ideas of governmental (e.g., parliamentary) sovereignty and supremacy, with boundaries of rights and limitations on actions of government agents being determined through the regular legislative process and not being fundamental limits on government.

coldtea 10y ago

>Are you suggesting evidence should be presentable to the court so long as the judge/just know it was illegally gained and the officer fired? I'm suggesting something like video evidence of a person committing a crime should be presentable to the court whether illegally obtained or not. It IS evidence of the crime after all, in the dictionary, common, sense. Now, if the video was indeed obtained illegally, then that's another, unrelated to the case on trial, issue, and can be tried separately, have the officer fired or fined, etc. The idea is very simple: we don't want the police illegally obtaining video (so we discourage that), but in case there is one and it proves a person's innocence or guilt, we might as well use it at the same time. Sounds perfectly logical to me. The idea that: we throw video evidence that a man is innocent and let him get the death penalty, or we throw video that a man killed 5 people and let him get off, because we want to discourage the police from getting video evidence illegally, sounds totally illogical. There are other ways to discourage the police from doing so in the general case, without throwing away perfectly good evidence if it's available in a particular case. Of course I'm not an American, and so I was not accustomed from a young age on what should and should not be held as evidence, and what is the supposed one and only way to go about such things.

infinite8s 10y ago
I'm not sure its possible for evidence demonstrating innocence to be obtained illegally, since it would usually be obtained and presented by the defense.