4 ms·
> So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if
by M2Ys4U 4y ago
> So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it.
That very much depends on jurisdiction; don't assume that American laws and norms are universal, nor that they are the best way of doing things.
- endtime 4y agoRule of law and due process are the best way of doing things, and are not exclusively American concepts.
- freeone3000 4y agoAbsolutely, but, Canadian law would absolutely allow illegally-collected evidence. The trial against the officer invading the defendant's privacy is a separate matter; the goal of a trial is to determine the truth of matters, after all, and if the defendant did kill someone, all evidence to support (or refute) that is generally admissible.
- endtime 4y agoNitpicking the details of the example isn't really a reputation of the more general point, though.
- freeone3000 4y agoThe details are the entire thing! The principles that we should have fair trials due process are followed, but, you end up with wildly different conclusions.
- google234123 4y agoFrom what I can tell, Canada is somewhere in between complete exclusionary and inclusionary rules wrt illegally obtained evidence.
- didibus 4y agoThis makes so much more sense lol. I think this is a good example of people accepting certain things at face value and never stop to think about it.
- msla 4y agoSo what makes the state follow the rules of evidence? Anything?
- geodel 4y agoWell, best way would be to do things my way.