3 ms·

I don't know the answer to your question, but let me just point out how awesome the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine is. There are very few countries whe

I don't know the answer to your question, but let me just point out how awesome the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine is. There are very few countries where that idea is as much a force as it is in the US–it's theoretically possible, but courts often shy away from applying it. I think it's a testament to the integrity of the US court system that they routinely let people off the hook, even when it is proven that they committed a serious crime. They are serving a higher goal, but they do so in the face of stiff public opposition ("The rapist got away on a technicality").

rendall 10y ago
"... they routinely let people off the hook..." [citation needed]
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  This is why corporatized, "media as entertainment" culture in the US is so dangerous. In reality, we live under a regime of insane violence and mass incarceration compared to other developed countries. But because the distinction between news media and "Law and Order" episodes is blurred in the minds of average Americans, people think everyone is escaping justice on a clever technicality vs. being forced to plead guilty to crimes they either didn't commit or are in excess of their actual offense (what really happens).
devoply 10y ago
Considering the fact that the legal system has put away more people as prisoners per capita than any other country in the world, I would beg to differ.
wonderwonder 10y ago
The only people let go on a technicality are those that can afford a good attorney. People with a public defender will almost always plead out because their overworked and under paid attorney advises them too. The public defenders have hundreds of clients a year and are often only able to provide each client with a day or so of attention. If you are poor and accused of a crime odds are you are going to be found guilty. If you are rich and accused of a crime, odds are you have a good attorney who has the resources and connections to find that "technicality"
- tracker1 10y ago
  That's why I think public defenders and prosecutors should be from a common pool, and that if their conviction/release rates are too lopsided, they are let go.
  - wonderwonder 10y ago
    I really like this idea.
jacquesm 10y ago
> There are very few countries where that idea is as much a force as it is in the US–it's theoretically possible, but courts often shy away from applying it. Here in NL it is very much in force and has led to some spectacular reversals in court. To the point where the police is now extra careful on how they get their evidence.
eric_the_read 10y ago
In theory. In practice, it's pretty much nonexistent. There's a long tweetstorm about it here: https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/821017618106744833 https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/821017618106744833 but the short version is that there are so many exceptions to the exclusionary rule (a.k.a. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine") that it might as well not exist for all the good it's likely to do you.
adrr 10y ago
It doesn't work when the law enforcement just uses parallel construction to get untainted evidence. Illegal wiretap to get information on where to look for evidence.

rendall 10y ago

"... they routinely let people off the hook..." [citation needed]

alphonsegaston 10y ago
This is why corporatized, "media as entertainment" culture in the US is so dangerous. In reality, we live under a regime of insane violence and mass incarceration compared to other developed countries. But because the distinction between news media and "Law and Order" episodes is blurred in the minds of average Americans, people think everyone is escaping justice on a clever technicality vs. being forced to plead guilty to crimes they either didn't commit or are in excess of their actual offense (what really happens).

devoply 10y ago

Considering the fact that the legal system has put away more people as prisoners per capita than any other country in the world, I would beg to differ.

wonderwonder 10y ago

The only people let go on a technicality are those that can afford a good attorney. People with a public defender will almost always plead out because their overworked and under paid attorney advises them too. The public defenders have hundreds of clients a year and are often only able to provide each client with a day or so of attention. If you are poor and accused of a crime odds are you are going to be found guilty. If you are rich and accused of a crime, odds are you have a good attorney who has the resources and connections to find that "technicality"

tracker1 10y ago
That's why I think public defenders and prosecutors should be from a common pool, and that if their conviction/release rates are too lopsided, they are let go.
- wonderwonder 10y ago
  I really like this idea.

jacquesm 10y ago

> There are very few countries where that idea is as much a force as it is in the US–it's theoretically possible, but courts often shy away from applying it. Here in NL it is very much in force and has led to some spectacular reversals in court. To the point where the police is now extra careful on how they get their evidence.

eric_the_read 10y ago

In theory. In practice, it's pretty much nonexistent. There's a long tweetstorm about it here: https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/821017618106744833 https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/821017618106744833 but the short version is that there are so many exceptions to the exclusionary rule (a.k.a. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine") that it might as well not exist for all the good it's likely to do you.

adrr 10y ago

It doesn't work when the law enforcement just uses parallel construction to get untainted evidence. Illegal wiretap to get information on where to look for evidence.