4 ms·
I quite like the rule about evidence without a warrant though. Its hard to make a solid rule on that one but it does feel off that the truth isn't admissible
by Quarrelsome 7y ago
I quite like the rule about evidence without a warrant though.
Its hard to make a solid rule on that one but it does feel off that the truth isn't admissible if malice was used to obtain it. Surely in its perfect abstract that malice is then a separate trial as long as the evidence is genuine.
- mkohlmyr 7y agoOver time it is probably preferable not to permit the use of malice by the government against its citizens to ascertain the truth.
- arkades 7y agoIt does feel off. That’s why lawyers have a saying, “bad facts make bad law.” That is, people tend to side with what feels right In a given situation rather than what is the best policy for a government to execute over millions of people over centuries.
- bcrosby95 7y agoViolating the bill of rights carries no criminal consequences. It's such an open ended set of rules I'm not sure its feasible for it to do so.
- peteretep 7y agoSomething can be a good idea on a one-off basis and a terrible idea when generalising out. Having a fair legal system with strong protections for citizens against the authorities trumps any individual conviction.
- maxfan8 7y agoYou should take a look at the good faith exception: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_excl... The Supreme Court only allows the exclusion of incriminating evidence only when it yields “appreciable deterrence”. In practice, this means that if police obtained a valid warrant (at the time), then the evidence is still admissible even if the warrant was later found to be illegal. Case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/229/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/229/