3 ms·

In the US inappropriately obtained evidence, failure to follow chain of custody, etc is waived by the judges and allowed under 'good faith' (the court assumes g

In the US inappropriately obtained evidence, failure to follow chain of custody, etc is waived by the judges and allowed under 'good faith' (the court assumes good faith on the police's part even though the police failed to follow the process/rules/law/requirements and therefor the court doesn't enforce compliance requirements). Search Lexus/Nexus for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith'. If the judge can waive away supposed rules/requirements/process violations with the blanket 'good faith' (that the court just blanket trusts that police were acting in good faith and not attribute maliciousness to their failure to comply) you don't actually have a system of rules/justice, you just have window dressing to make it appear you have a system of rules and justice.

tptacek 2y ago
I mean that's nice and all, but you're comparing the US to countries that literally don't enshrine that protection at all. It is not a universal principle of criminal justice that you have the right not to be confronted with evidence obtained improperly. Again: compare this to France, which doesn't even have an adversarial criminal justice system --- they run an inquisitorial system, with cooperating judges and prosecutors. None of this is to say that the US system is better; it is better in some ways and worse in others (notably sentencing).
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  I'm comparing the US to a nation of laws. In a nation of laws, you can determine the outcome from the rules. In the US, you can't. In the US warrant rules don't apply. Chain of custody rules don't apply. Instead the judge extending 'good faith' to law enforcement when they fail to follow the rules applies. A nation of laws doesn't exist when the judges discretion in favor of the Police who 'are trusted' and receive deferential accommodation over the rights of civilians to expect the laws/rules enforced on the government even if inconvenient.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Again, this assumes that the protections implied by search warrants in the United States are a universal principle of criminal justice, and they are not.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      No, the assumption is that search warrant protections are part of the American law system (they are) but that the legal requirements around them are routinely ignored in America (they are) with arm waving and the term 'good faith', making the American system not a predictable system that follows it's rules, but one that is bent by judges around police 'failure' to follow the rules. The French system can be completely different, but, if you follow the logic of the law, it's matches what happens in practice, it's a valid legal system. The USA does not have that, because while it pretends warrant are required in actuality they aren't and requirements/protections for citizens can be waived away by judges under 'good faith'.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        This to me reads as an argument that no protections are better than protections applied inconsistently. Maybe on a message board, but if I was a defendant, it seems like the decision between the two would be easy to make.
        Lerc 2y ago
        Marginalised groups have argued for removal of protections because of inconsistent application. If the application is inconsistent the marginalised are the ones who suffer from that inconsistency. Those with the power to fix the underlying issues tend to be beneficiaries of that inconsistency, giving them little incentive to make changes. Frequently they don't even perceive there to be a problem because while inconsistent application is theoretically possible, their experience suggests that it just doesn't happen that often. So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?

tptacek 2y ago

I mean that's nice and all, but you're comparing the US to countries that literally don't enshrine that protection at all. It is not a universal principle of criminal justice that you have the right not to be confronted with evidence obtained improperly. Again: compare this to France, which doesn't even have an adversarial criminal justice system --- they run an inquisitorial system, with cooperating judges and prosecutors. None of this is to say that the US system is better; it is better in some ways and worse in others (notably sentencing).

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
I'm comparing the US to a nation of laws. In a nation of laws, you can determine the outcome from the rules. In the US, you can't. In the US warrant rules don't apply. Chain of custody rules don't apply. Instead the judge extending 'good faith' to law enforcement when they fail to follow the rules applies. A nation of laws doesn't exist when the judges discretion in favor of the Police who 'are trusted' and receive deferential accommodation over the rights of civilians to expect the laws/rules enforced on the government even if inconvenient.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Again, this assumes that the protections implied by search warrants in the United States are a universal principle of criminal justice, and they are not.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    No, the assumption is that search warrant protections are part of the American law system (they are) but that the legal requirements around them are routinely ignored in America (they are) with arm waving and the term 'good faith', making the American system not a predictable system that follows it's rules, but one that is bent by judges around police 'failure' to follow the rules. The French system can be completely different, but, if you follow the logic of the law, it's matches what happens in practice, it's a valid legal system. The USA does not have that, because while it pretends warrant are required in actuality they aren't and requirements/protections for citizens can be waived away by judges under 'good faith'.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      This to me reads as an argument that no protections are better than protections applied inconsistently. Maybe on a message board, but if I was a defendant, it seems like the decision between the two would be easy to make.
      - Lerc 2y ago
        Marginalised groups have argued for removal of protections because of inconsistent application. If the application is inconsistent the marginalised are the ones who suffer from that inconsistency. Those with the power to fix the underlying issues tend to be beneficiaries of that inconsistency, giving them little incentive to make changes. Frequently they don't even perceive there to be a problem because while inconsistent application is theoretically possible, their experience suggests that it just doesn't happen that often. So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?