7 ms·

You actually are, and in fact, the convictions have started to be reversed as a result of this ... Good thing an NDA caused rapists/etc to go free!

jacquesm 12y ago
> Good thing an NDA caused rapists/etc to go free! No, good thing illegal behaviour by police departments was identified and rightly led to overturning the convictions resulting from that behaviour. Whether the perps were murderers, pot smokers or speeders (or innocents...) does not matter.
- whyenot 12y ago
  > Whether the perps were murderers, pot smokers or speeders (or innocents...) does not matter. You might not agree if you were the victim or the victim's friends/family. The evidence might have been illegally gathered, but it was also pretty damming. I absolutely agree with what the ACLU is doing, but there is still a victim and they will likely never see justice. It's a real failing of the US justice system, and not something I'm personally comfortable in celebrating.
  - gknoy 12y ago
    I woudl be very upset if someone who hurt my ${loved one} went free because of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. However, I like to believe that I'd be directing my anger at the organization that decided to use bad techniques to get evidence, rather than at the law that protects all of us from such behavior.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Well put the cops and prosecutors in jail - they are the reason the perps go free.
    - whyenot 12y ago
      That doesn't help the victim. I expect a significant number of people would characterize what the police did as bending the rules a little to catch a rapist on the loose. Many -- including me! aren't going to agree with that, but it is a legitimate point of view, and it does explain why police are very rarely sanctioned for actions like this.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Legitimate implies legal, and legal it is not. It's a fine line between bending the rules an breaking the rules and any lawyer worth their salt will get their client off the hook if the police are found to be bending the rules. If there is one thing more dangerous than criminals then it is authorities operating without any checks on their power. So if you want criminals to be punished for their deeds you should be very much against police bending the rules to catch them.
      - bandushrew 12y ago
        Ideally they would capture a rapist without breaking the law.
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        > That doesn't help the victim. The point of putting people in prison isn't supposed to be to help the victim, either. The victim is kind of irrelevant.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > The evidence might have been illegally gathered, but it was also pretty damming. I know that this is hard to stomach, especially for the victims. But as a society we've determined that convictions based on illegal evidence are a bigger problem than the crimes they intend to punish. And by and large that is a good thing, even if in individual cases it hurts like hell. The alternative, a society where police can commit crimes in order to catch criminals is much worse than a society where the police is still kept in check by the law. In a really just society these officers would be charged.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      " The alternative, a society where police can commit crimes in order to catch criminals is much worse than a society where the police is still kept in check by the law. In a really just society these officers would be charged." I don't disagree, but there are alternatives to the exclusionary rule, like massive civil liability (or even criminal liability for the police) instead of the current qualified immunity regime. If a group of police officers illegally obtains evidence, and goes bankrupt/gets foreclosed on/etc for doing it, they are unlikely to do this again. In fact, i'd venture that qualified immunity has done more than anything else to foster this culture of misconduct that the exclusionary rule was meant to prevent. The likelihood of criminal charges against police in these cases was always low. I believe at this point, time has shown that the exclusionary rule is not really an effective deterrent to police misconduct, whereas at least int he US, real money might be. (sad, but true). As a complete aside, "we as a society" did not decide anything. The exclusionary rule was judicially created, and very very recent (late 1900's). Prior to that, illegal evidence was as good as anything else in the US.
bandushrew 12y ago
The NDA did not cause the rapists to go free. The fact the police broke the law did that. they should not have done it.
ceejayoz 12y ago
> Good thing an NDA caused rapists/etc to go free! No, police misconduct did, and that's how the justice system needs to work. If they face no consequences for violating the law, they'll continue to do so.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment (which was essentially "good thing the police decided to commit clear misconduct by signing an NDA and then committing brady violations") But in any case, the justice system didn't work this way for a long time, and was effective. The exclusionary rule only came into play in 1914 in any real way. It also doesn't work this way in other countries and is effective there too. The cops, in the end, aren't punished because someone went free. We are. I'd posit that large amounts of civil liability for the cops who do this would be a much better deterrent than letting a criminal that isn't them, go free. (the other option, of criminally charging cops, is just never going to happen)

jacquesm 12y ago

> Good thing an NDA caused rapists/etc to go free! No, good thing illegal behaviour by police departments was identified and rightly led to overturning the convictions resulting from that behaviour. Whether the perps were murderers, pot smokers or speeders (or innocents...) does not matter.

whyenot 12y ago
> Whether the perps were murderers, pot smokers or speeders (or innocents...) does not matter. You might not agree if you were the victim or the victim's friends/family. The evidence might have been illegally gathered, but it was also pretty damming. I absolutely agree with what the ACLU is doing, but there is still a victim and they will likely never see justice. It's a real failing of the US justice system, and not something I'm personally comfortable in celebrating.
- gknoy 12y ago
  I woudl be very upset if someone who hurt my ${loved one} went free because of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. However, I like to believe that I'd be directing my anger at the organization that decided to use bad techniques to get evidence, rather than at the law that protects all of us from such behavior.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Well put the cops and prosecutors in jail - they are the reason the perps go free.
  - whyenot 12y ago
    That doesn't help the victim. I expect a significant number of people would characterize what the police did as bending the rules a little to catch a rapist on the loose. Many -- including me! aren't going to agree with that, but it is a legitimate point of view, and it does explain why police are very rarely sanctioned for actions like this.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Legitimate implies legal, and legal it is not. It's a fine line between bending the rules an breaking the rules and any lawyer worth their salt will get their client off the hook if the police are found to be bending the rules. If there is one thing more dangerous than criminals then it is authorities operating without any checks on their power. So if you want criminals to be punished for their deeds you should be very much against police bending the rules to catch them.
    - bandushrew 12y ago
      Ideally they would capture a rapist without breaking the law.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      > That doesn't help the victim. The point of putting people in prison isn't supposed to be to help the victim, either. The victim is kind of irrelevant.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > The evidence might have been illegally gathered, but it was also pretty damming. I know that this is hard to stomach, especially for the victims. But as a society we've determined that convictions based on illegal evidence are a bigger problem than the crimes they intend to punish. And by and large that is a good thing, even if in individual cases it hurts like hell. The alternative, a society where police can commit crimes in order to catch criminals is much worse than a society where the police is still kept in check by the law. In a really just society these officers would be charged.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    " The alternative, a society where police can commit crimes in order to catch criminals is much worse than a society where the police is still kept in check by the law. In a really just society these officers would be charged." I don't disagree, but there are alternatives to the exclusionary rule, like massive civil liability (or even criminal liability for the police) instead of the current qualified immunity regime. If a group of police officers illegally obtains evidence, and goes bankrupt/gets foreclosed on/etc for doing it, they are unlikely to do this again. In fact, i'd venture that qualified immunity has done more than anything else to foster this culture of misconduct that the exclusionary rule was meant to prevent. The likelihood of criminal charges against police in these cases was always low. I believe at this point, time has shown that the exclusionary rule is not really an effective deterrent to police misconduct, whereas at least int he US, real money might be. (sad, but true). As a complete aside, "we as a society" did not decide anything. The exclusionary rule was judicially created, and very very recent (late 1900's). Prior to that, illegal evidence was as good as anything else in the US.

bandushrew 12y ago

The NDA did not cause the rapists to go free. The fact the police broke the law did that. they should not have done it.

ceejayoz 12y ago

> Good thing an NDA caused rapists/etc to go free! No, police misconduct did, and that's how the justice system needs to work. If they face no consequences for violating the law, they'll continue to do so.

DannyBee 12y ago
I think you misunderstood my comment (which was essentially "good thing the police decided to commit clear misconduct by signing an NDA and then committing brady violations") But in any case, the justice system didn't work this way for a long time, and was effective. The exclusionary rule only came into play in 1914 in any real way. It also doesn't work this way in other countries and is effective there too. The cops, in the end, aren't punished because someone went free. We are. I'd posit that large amounts of civil liability for the cops who do this would be a much better deterrent than letting a criminal that isn't them, go free. (the other option, of criminally charging cops, is just never going to happen)