4 ms·

> Perhaps there's some important principle of rights that's eluding me. Convicting the guy is one alternative, but there's another (non-mutually exclusive) opt

by mrkeen 2y ago

> Perhaps there's some important principle of rights that's eluding me. Convicting the guy is one alternative, but there's another (non-mutually exclusive) option: punish whoever conducted an illegal search. If a warrant legitimised the search, punish the judge instead. If the judge didn't know any better because he was deceived, punish whoever lied to the judge, and so on. "Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach.

ninalanyon 2y ago
This is how it works, or is supposed to work, in Norway. Illegally gathered evidence is still evidence.
- justin66 2y ago
  I wonder how well that can possibly work in practice. It can't go over great in front of a jury when someone who is going to be punished for violating the rules talks about the evidence they've obtained, advocating for its legitimacy.
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    There are no juries in Norway. Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature.
    - justin66 2y ago
      I expect the problems are similar in front of a judge. > Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature. That's obviously not true. The simplest counterexample is a witness report, where the credibility attached to the facts being reported will depend directly on the credibility of the witness. "The suspect verbally admitted he committed the crime while locked up in my car" will mean a lot less coming from a cop who lied to a judge while obtaining the arrest warrant.
      - ninalanyon 2y ago
        That officer is not relating a verifiable fact, it's not evidence. Eye witness testimony is well known to be unreliable. As are confessions. Besides, you've move the goalposts from how to by whom.
        justin66 2y ago
        > it's not evidence It’s boring to argue about the definitions of words, but you’re using English and in the countries where English is primarily spoken, testimony is considered evidence.
garrettgarcia 2y ago
> "Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach. But it isn't just that. It's a possible perjury charge for lying to a judge. It's the strong likelihood of ending the detective's career or at least limiting it significantly. It's the political fallout from articles like this one. It's the potential civil rights lawsuit bankrupting against the department and detective. It's the personal shame and guilt that the detective feels for knowing that it's their corner-cutting that let a murder escape justice. Imagine having to face the victim's family if this guy is acquitted... These are big deterrents.
- renewedrebecca 2y ago
  Then why does this sort of thing keep happening? This is another reason why police officers should be required to carry malpractice insurance, that they pay for.
  - garrettgarcia 2y ago
    How often does it happen? 0.1% of cases? 0.01%?
    - mrkeen 2y ago
      That figure sounds right - if you're talking about prosecutors being punished. A survey conducted by the Innocence Project, Innocence Project New Orleans, Resurrection After Exoneration and the Veritas Initiative looked at five diverse states over a five-year period (2004-2008) and identified 660 cases in which courts found prosecutors committed misconduct, such as tampering with key evidence, withholding evidence from the defendant or coercing a witness to give false testimony. [..] Of the 660 cases examined, only one prosecutor accused of misconduct was disciplined. https://innocenceproject.org/why-holding-prosecutors-accountable-is-so-difficult/ https://innocenceproject.org/why-holding-prosecutors-account...

by mrkeen 2y ago

ninalanyon 2y ago

This is how it works, or is supposed to work, in Norway. Illegally gathered evidence is still evidence.

justin66 2y ago
I wonder how well that can possibly work in practice. It can't go over great in front of a jury when someone who is going to be punished for violating the rules talks about the evidence they've obtained, advocating for its legitimacy.
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  There are no juries in Norway. Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature.
  - justin66 2y ago
    I expect the problems are similar in front of a judge. > Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature. That's obviously not true. The simplest counterexample is a witness report, where the credibility attached to the facts being reported will depend directly on the credibility of the witness. "The suspect verbally admitted he committed the crime while locked up in my car" will mean a lot less coming from a cop who lied to a judge while obtaining the arrest warrant.
    - ninalanyon 2y ago
      That officer is not relating a verifiable fact, it's not evidence. Eye witness testimony is well known to be unreliable. As are confessions. Besides, you've move the goalposts from how to by whom.
      - justin66 2y ago
        > it's not evidence It’s boring to argue about the definitions of words, but you’re using English and in the countries where English is primarily spoken, testimony is considered evidence.

garrettgarcia 2y ago

> "Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach. But it isn't just that. It's a possible perjury charge for lying to a judge. It's the strong likelihood of ending the detective's career or at least limiting it significantly. It's the political fallout from articles like this one. It's the potential civil rights lawsuit bankrupting against the department and detective. It's the personal shame and guilt that the detective feels for knowing that it's their corner-cutting that let a murder escape justice. Imagine having to face the victim's family if this guy is acquitted... These are big deterrents.

renewedrebecca 2y ago
Then why does this sort of thing keep happening? This is another reason why police officers should be required to carry malpractice insurance, that they pay for.
- garrettgarcia 2y ago
  How often does it happen? 0.1% of cases? 0.01%?
  - mrkeen 2y ago
    That figure sounds right - if you're talking about prosecutors being punished. A survey conducted by the Innocence Project, Innocence Project New Orleans, Resurrection After Exoneration and the Veritas Initiative looked at five diverse states over a five-year period (2004-2008) and identified 660 cases in which courts found prosecutors committed misconduct, such as tampering with key evidence, withholding evidence from the defendant or coercing a witness to give false testimony. [..] Of the 660 cases examined, only one prosecutor accused of misconduct was disciplined. https://innocenceproject.org/why-holding-prosecutors-accountable-is-so-difficult/ https://innocenceproject.org/why-holding-prosecutors-account...