4 ms·
Interesting fact: How evidence was obtained is only important in the US. For example, in Austria where I live, it doesn't matter how the evidence was obtained.
by jakobe 13y ago
Interesting fact: How evidence was obtained is only important in the US. For example, in Austria where I live, it doesn't matter how the evidence was obtained.
In Austria, if someone illegally spies on you, the information they collect can be freely used in court. It is not important where the evidence comes from, it is only important if the evidence is credible or not.
This doesn't mean that the police can do whatever they want; if they torture someone, a potential confession would be worthless because it wouldn't be credible. And if the police used illegal means, that would bring about a separate trial (in theory).
But courts in Austria never have to pretend that some evidence doesn't exist.
- paradoja 13y ago> is only important in the US It may not be important everywhere, but there are other places where the origin of evidence is indeed important (e.g. Spain, in the EU). Just because in Austria it isn't you can't conclude that it's only important in the US.
- rpgmaker 13y ago>But courts in Austria never have to pretend that some evidence doesn't exist. Those restrictions are important to safeguard people's rights. The US since its founding has always had a bias for protecting individual civil rights, in theory at least. I rather this way of doing things.
- stcredzero 13y agoPresumption of innocence is not directly enshrined in the US constitution. Some local jurisdictions purposefully relax it for the sake of balance. (For example, it is done in places where it is seen as much too hard to convict for rape.)
- vacri 13y agoBut courts in Austria never have to pretend that some evidence doesn't exist. It's not about pretending the evidence doesn't exist, it's about protecting people from abuse of police power.