3 ms·

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.