5 ms·

The "right to face your accuser" refers to witnesses. The state is _always_ the prosecutor in criminal cases (in the US, IANAL).

Karunamon 12y ago
So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime? This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face. Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the testimony of a person who saw it, regularly.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  In order to introduce the video as evidence, they have to put somebody on the stand who will explain how the camera works and so on. And right there is your opportunity to confront them. You can ask all sorts of questions, like when was the last time they cleaned the lenses.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - brianpgordon 12y ago
    I'm going to need a source on that. I'm pretty sure a video can be entered as evidence without any actual witness to present it. Maybe you live in a state with unusual rules.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Google "entering evidence at trial" and then click on just about any of the first ten results. They all lay out roughly the same procedure.
- mnarayan01 12y ago
  > Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? Someone testifies as to what they've witnessed that makes them believe you are guilty, giving you a chance to question them about any flaws.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Okay. And how does a speed/red light camera preclude this?
    - mnarayan01 12y ago
      IANAL but I don't believe it does. In a criminal trial introducing one as evidence would require some substantial effort (witnesses testifying to location, lack of tampering, etc), but I believe (again, IANAL) that generally states treat camera violations as civil, thus avoiding this work. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different question.

Karunamon 12y ago

So what happens when you are caught breaking into a building, and the camera is evidence of your crime? This entire line of reasoning would completely destroy any kind of automated crime detection (security systems, security cameras), which is ridiculous on its face. Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? People are rightfully convicted of crimes based on "things" rather than the testimony of a person who saw it, regularly.

tedunangst 12y ago
In order to introduce the video as evidence, they have to put somebody on the stand who will explain how the camera works and so on. And right there is your opportunity to confront them. You can ask all sorts of questions, like when was the last time they cleaned the lenses.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- brianpgordon 12y ago
  I'm going to need a source on that. I'm pretty sure a video can be entered as evidence without any actual witness to present it. Maybe you live in a state with unusual rules.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Google "entering evidence at trial" and then click on just about any of the first ten results. They all lay out roughly the same procedure.
mnarayan01 12y ago
> Further, what happens when you commit a crime where there are no witnesses? Someone testifies as to what they've witnessed that makes them believe you are guilty, giving you a chance to question them about any flaws.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Okay. And how does a speed/red light camera preclude this?
  - mnarayan01 12y ago
    IANAL but I don't believe it does. In a criminal trial introducing one as evidence would require some substantial effort (witnesses testifying to location, lack of tampering, etc), but I believe (again, IANAL) that generally states treat camera violations as civil, thus avoiding this work. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different question.