5 ms·

So by your logic if police obtain from beating and torturing people, it should still be admissible?

by rabite 12y ago

xorcist 12y ago
Not a confession for example, because such evidence is not trustworthy. Not because it was procured illegally. Those are two very separate questions. If a police tortured someone, he or she should be brought to justice and possibly jailed for the crime. But indenpendently of that, if that produced absolutely irrefutable evidence of another crime, then that evicence should be allowed to stand on its own. It is what the word evidence means (a mathematical evidence, for example, is just as valid no matter how it was procured). And it's not "my" logic. I'd venture a guess that it is the most common way to practice justice in the world: That the purpose of a court is to establish guilt.
- rabite 12y ago
  So if not a confession, what about a warrantless systematic search of every home in a neighborhood?
  - xorcist 12y ago
    As I said earlier, evidence is evidence. It is not illegal or legal for the purpose of establishing guilt. It can be more or less trustworthy, but legality does not play into it. The appropriate questions to ask in that situation would be "does this evidence really say what we think it does", and "are there reasons to believe this evidence is fabricated?", not "how was it procured?". The people responsible for a warrantless search should of course be brought to justice, and at least lose their jobs, but as a separate matter.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      Do you think there would be many people calling for the resignation of a rogue cop who flagrantly violated the law but in the process managed to solve a much higher than average number of crimes?
      - xorcist 12y ago
        Fortunately, the populace does not decide justice. Judges and lawyers are not elect, for this very reason. But we shouldn't go too deep with the hypothetical questions. In most (western, civilized) parts of the world evidence is evidence. And they have lesser problems with police brutality, pretty much any way you look at the data (from bullets fired to people's conceptions).
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        A judge is supposed to be neutral, but a prosecutor isn't. This isn't an issue of brutality, we would need stats on the number of illegal searches conducted in different countries and we would need to know that these stats were accurate. This might be difficult because most illegal searches probably go unreported.
    - mikecb 12y ago
      I suggest you read the SCOTUS opinions in the cases that generated the exclusionary[1] and other "prophylactic" rules. The judiciary has created several, including this one and the Miranda warnings[2], in order to protect the integrity of the judiciary. The opinions lay out why the court felt it necessary to do so. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/ [2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.htm...
      - xorcist 12y ago
        Thank you for taking the time to actually answer the question, despite the sea of downvotes. That is quite heaving reading for someone not up to speed with the US justice system. I have to admit I will save it for a rainy day. The Miranda readings does also come off quite strange to an outsider, but the reasons behind it is much more obvious as a matter of educating the public.
- RexRollman 12y ago
  The purpose of a court is not to establish guilt. It's only job is to produce an outcome based on law.

So by your logic if police obtain from beating and torturing people, it should still be admissible?

by rabite 12y ago

So by your logic if police obtain from beating and torturing people, it should still be admissible?

Not a confession for example, because such evidence is not trustworthy. Not because it was procured illegally. Those are two very separate questions. If a police tortured someone, he or she should be brought to justice and possibly jailed for the crime. But indenpendently of that, if that produced absolutely irrefutable evidence of another crime, then that evicence should be allowed to stand on its own. It is what the word evidence means (a mathematical evidence, for example, is just as valid no matter how it was procured). And it's not "my" logic. I'd venture a guess that it is the most common way to practice justice in the world: That the purpose of a court is to establish guilt.

rabite 12y ago
So if not a confession, what about a warrantless systematic search of every home in a neighborhood?
- xorcist 12y ago
  As I said earlier, evidence is evidence. It is not illegal or legal for the purpose of establishing guilt. It can be more or less trustworthy, but legality does not play into it. The appropriate questions to ask in that situation would be "does this evidence really say what we think it does", and "are there reasons to believe this evidence is fabricated?", not "how was it procured?". The people responsible for a warrantless search should of course be brought to justice, and at least lose their jobs, but as a separate matter.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Do you think there would be many people calling for the resignation of a rogue cop who flagrantly violated the law but in the process managed to solve a much higher than average number of crimes?
    - xorcist 12y ago
      Fortunately, the populace does not decide justice. Judges and lawyers are not elect, for this very reason. But we shouldn't go too deep with the hypothetical questions. In most (western, civilized) parts of the world evidence is evidence. And they have lesser problems with police brutality, pretty much any way you look at the data (from bullets fired to people's conceptions).
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        A judge is supposed to be neutral, but a prosecutor isn't. This isn't an issue of brutality, we would need stats on the number of illegal searches conducted in different countries and we would need to know that these stats were accurate. This might be difficult because most illegal searches probably go unreported.
  - mikecb 12y ago
    I suggest you read the SCOTUS opinions in the cases that generated the exclusionary[1] and other "prophylactic" rules. The judiciary has created several, including this one and the Miranda warnings[2], in order to protect the integrity of the judiciary. The opinions lay out why the court felt it necessary to do so. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/ [2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.htm...
    - xorcist 12y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to actually answer the question, despite the sea of downvotes. That is quite heaving reading for someone not up to speed with the US justice system. I have to admit I will save it for a rainy day. The Miranda readings does also come off quite strange to an outsider, but the reasons behind it is much more obvious as a matter of educating the public.
RexRollman 12y ago
The purpose of a court is not to establish guilt. It's only job is to produce an outcome based on law.