- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,350
- Reaction score
- 6,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Reading another thread on here prompted this question.
Should evidence obtained illegally still be used in a trial?
A few things to note. I know what the law currently is so stating that the law is that it is illegal doesn't answer the question. I am asking if you personally think that evidence should be used in the trial.
For instance if a man is killing someone and video tapes the whole thing. Cops search his house illegally and find the tape. Or anything along those lines. The cops illegal behavior doesn't change that the man committed the crime. So why should it be a factor? Doesn't the victim still deserve justice? Why not keep the evidence, since it is evidence, and instead of allowing a guilty man walk to kill again, instead punish the cop?
Reading another thread on here prompted this question.
Should evidence obtained illegally still be used in a trial?
A few things to note. I know what the law currently is so stating that the law is that it is illegal doesn't answer the question. I am asking if you personally think that evidence should be used in the trial.
For instance if a man is killing someone and video tapes the whole thing. Cops search his house illegally and find the tape. Or anything along those lines. The cops illegal behavior doesn't change that the man committed the crime. So why should it be a factor? Doesn't the victim still deserve justice? Why not keep the evidence, since it is evidence, and instead of allowing a guilty man walk to kill again, instead punish the cop?
Cops shouldn't be searching your house unless they have a warrant. Why exactly should there be any incentive to act illegally by law enforcement?
If the evidence is still permissible then people aren't being protected from illegal search and seizure.
Reading another thread on here prompted this question.
Should evidence obtained illegally still be used in a trial?
A few things to note. I know what the law currently is so stating that the law is that it is illegal doesn't answer the question. I am asking if you personally think that evidence should be used in the trial.
For instance if a man is killing someone and video tapes the whole thing. Cops search his house illegally and find the tape. Or anything along those lines. The cops illegal behavior doesn't change that the man committed the crime. So why should it be a factor? Doesn't the victim still deserve justice? Why not keep the evidence, since it is evidence, and instead of allowing a guilty man walk to kill again, instead punish the cop?
Im not saying they should be. The cop searching the persons house is wrong, and that cop should be punished, whatever the sentencing for B&E is possibly. But that doesn't change the person's guilt. They should still be accountable for what they've done.
There are other ways. Doesn't the victim of the crime deserve justice?
If the police know they wont be able to use the evidence they will not be tempted.
No, it shouldn't.
If you allow evidence obtained illegally to be used in trial than you incentivize illegal collection of evidence in situations where it would be difficult to legally obtain said evidence otherwise. You also incentivize law enforcement to illegally attempt to gain evidence in situations where there it may not even exist, and so your rights are trampled upon for no good reason.
Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A cop ignoring the law to get evidence does so only based on an assumption of guilt.
yes the cop is wrong. I'm not arguing that. But there are other ways to discourage cops from doing it. Let the cops do time for breaking the law, be removed from the force. But one person breaking the law doesn't negate or excuse someone else breaking it.
I vote yes. Evidence is evidence. As long as it's not manufactured evidence, and it still proves the guilt (or innocence) of the person, so it should be able to be used.
That's exactly the kind of logic that leads down the path to a police state. For every guilty individual, thousands rights will be violated.
yes the cop is wrong. I'm not arguing that. But there are other ways to discourage cops from doing it. Let the cops do time for breaking the law, be removed from the force. But one person breaking the law doesn't negate or excuse someone else breaking it.
That's exactly the kind of logic that leads down the path to a police state. For every guilty individual, thousands rights will be violated.
Im not saying they should be. The cop searching the persons house is wrong, and that cop should be punished, whatever the sentencing for B&E is possibly. But that doesn't change the person's guilt. They should still be accountable for what they've done.
yes the cop is wrong. I'm not arguing that. But there are other ways to discourage cops from doing it. Let the cops do time for breaking the law, be removed from the force. But one person breaking the law doesn't negate or excuse someone else breaking it.
yes the cop is wrong. I'm not arguing that. But there are other ways to discourage cops from doing it. Let the cops do time for breaking the law, be removed from the force. But one person breaking the law doesn't negate or excuse someone else breaking it.
Reading another thread on here prompted this question.
Should evidence obtained illegally still be used in a trial?
A few things to note. I know what the law currently is so stating that the law is that it is illegal doesn't answer the question. I am asking if you personally think that evidence should be used in the trial.
For instance if a man is killing someone and video tapes the whole thing. Cops search his house illegally and find the tape. Or anything along those lines. The cops illegal behavior doesn't change that the man committed the crime. So why should it be a factor? Doesn't the victim still deserve justice? Why not keep the evidence, since it is evidence, and instead of allowing a guilty man walk to kill again, instead punish the cop?
That's what I was thinking. People okay with this have strong Orwellian tendencies. Not only does this fly in the face of the Fourth Amendment, but what if a shoddy tip or some cop's "hunch" turns up nothing after destroying the privacy of an innocent person?
There are so many slippery slopes that the statists are casually willing to slide down.
I dont know if this will make sense or not, but the way I think about it is... criminals rights are not important at all. Not even a little bit for the criminal, but they are of utmost importance to the rest of us. I dont think rights are meant to protect criminals but to protect the rest of us.
I vote yes. Evidence is evidence. As long as it's not manufactured evidence, and it still proves the guilt (or innocence) of the person, so it should be able to be used.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?