• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

illegal evidence

Should evidence obtained illegally still be used in a trial?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 9.5%

  • No

    Votes: 38 90.5%
  • Total voters
    42
Quag said:
You want to be pissed off look up the Karla Hmolka/Paul Bernardo case.
Paul Bernardo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok this isnt about illegal evidence but about horrible plea deals. Karla plead out and testified against Paul to get a lesser sentence. Video tapes were discovered afterwards showing that she was not "forced" into these crimes by Paul but actively partook for her own sick amusement. She is now out of prison though Bernardo never will be.
FYI this evil woman raped and killed her own sister!
Personally I think if someone lies in a plea deal the deal should be automatically annuled but apparently that isnt how it works.
Click to expand...

See - it's not a perfect system, but when you start trying to make suggestions, people start screaming that you are trying to toss out the Constitution.
 
Kreton said:
thats not true at all. I am not saying that we should make it ok for illegal searches to be legal and give cops the green light to do what they want. If a cop performs an illegal search he should be punished. Jail time, removal from the force. Something along those lines. However, punishing the victim, other members of society, and the victims family ect by saying that if a cop makes a mistake or breaks the law that crime is ok does not seem like the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

It's not called the thin blue line for nothing The threat that a perp could walk if they don't obey law and procedure is not often enough as it is.
 
Quag said:
I voted NO.
However I do have a qualification. It is possible for evidence to be declared to be illegal because a good defence lawyer meets a crappy judge. That is wrong.
I am thinking of a specific incident that happened 5-10 years ago around here. A guys buisness was leggally searched based on an informant using a valid search warrant. They found something like 20 million in illegal stuff (cant remember if stolen or drugs, was a large warehouse). They defence lawyer managed to discredit the informant and the judge ruled that the search warrant was invalid and thus the evidence could not be used. Guy walked away scott free despite being guilty as hell. Mind you he did lose 20 million in merchandise.
It was a big scandal as it was obvioulsy legal manouevering that got the search warrant declared invalid.

That kind of crap seems wrong but in general is better make sure the authorities have their ducks all in a row so as to avoid abuse.
Click to expand...

Let me guess what might have happened. The cops got info about this by an illegal method and then coerced someone to give testimony about it and that was caught.
 
mak2 said:
Lets say I am a police officer and I "know" this guy in my small town is selling drugs. I really want to make the bust but the guy just never screws up. So I bust in the damn door and take his joints and arrest him for marijuana possession.
Click to expand...
Or the cop brings some marijuana with him, just in case his hunch about the guy being a drug dealer is wrong and the guy doesn't have any. He simply plants the evidence.

I know a couple of people who this has happened to. The cop planted the evidence (crack cocaine) in their cars. This is one of the reasons you should never consent to a search.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...
First of all, your hypothetical scenario is an absurdity. What evidence did the cops have which led them to believe the video tape of the murder was in the house? Why wouldn't they just use that evidence to obtain a search warrant in the first place?

Such absurd hypothetical scenarios are not a good reason to burn the Bill of Rights.
 
iliveonramen said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yep, only exception is an open violation. If an officer shows up to serve a noise complaint an you have another crime in plain view then that would be the only exception to the rule.

EDIT - Plain view, the noise complaint example was one of many.
 
Rainman05 said:
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.
Click to expand...
"If" officers were allowed to routinely spot check homes they would probably nab thousands of criminals a year, if not more. The chilling aspect of something like that is the death of multiple rights in that process.
 
grip said:
Oh yeah, some people go to their own grave really twisted, but they're mentally sick and actually pitiful. Ever heard Manson talk in an interview, he's bonkers and it's really miserable to exist that way. It's difficult not to really want to hate but it's a toxic emotion to hold onto indefinitely.

I remember telling my father that the world was horrible and a scary place, full of monsters, and he said "that's out there, you live in here where it's safe."
Click to expand...
Yes, Manson is bonkers. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that the prosecutor in that case was even more bonkers. He came up with a pretty damned bizarre theory for a motive in those murders.
 
Muhammed said:
Yes, Manson is bonkers. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that the prosecutor in that case was even more bonkers. He came up with a pretty damned bizarre theory for a motive in those murders.
Click to expand...

And though some people who're bonkers are mean, contemptible and twisted, it doesn't mean you have to like them, simply realize they're not of a right mind. It does my own humanity no good to wish untoward harm upon any soul, regardless of how bad they appear. If punishment benefits them and society in the form of correction, then it's a positive thing, though it may seem cruel. But to just hurt someone for the blood thirsty desire for revenge is not justice or any better than them.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

I should think that the last thing we need is to motivate the state to do illegal things.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

I voted no for two reasons:

1. No one, including government, should benefit from an illegal act.

2. I have more to fear from a government beyond the control of the law than I do from a single murderer who will never cross my path.
 
Superfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you promoting added jobs to the underworld?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yep, only exception is an open violation. If an officer shows up to serve a noise complaint an you have another crime in plain view then that would be the only exception to the rule.

EDIT - Plain view, the noise complaint example was one of many.
Click to expand...

I think that exception as well any other conceivable exceptions should be removed. If you search or enter a residence you MUST have a warrant regardless.
 
Kreton said:
The cops illegal behavior doesn't change that the man committed the crime.
Click to expand...
True.

So why should it be a factor?
Click to expand...

Because we have the 4th amendment and the law enforcement should have a warrant to conduct a search.

Doesn't the victim still deserve justice?
Click to expand...

Yes the victim deserves justice.But at the same time we do not wipe our ass with the 4th amendment to administer that justice.

Why not keep the evidence, since it is evidence, and instead of allowing a guilty man walk to kill again,
Click to expand...

Because there will be incentive for law enforcement to violate the 4th amendment if you keep that evidence.


instead punish the cop?
Click to expand...

I am sure there are some cops who will take one for the team to put away someone he really believes is guilty or is paid to take one for the team in exchange for being punished.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's not "the law" that makes it paramount the state not be able to do same, it's The Constitution of the United States of America. We either uphold it, or we don't. I've never read one "....unless..." in it. It shouldn't be easy for The State to deprive someone of their life, liberty and happiness, It should be difficult. It must be difficult.
 
Kreton said:
There are other ways. Doesn't the victim of the crime deserve justice?
Click to expand...

Why not the correct way stipulated in the Constitution? What reason would there be to justify not following established police procedure and the Constitution?

What reason would there be for any law enforcement agency to violate a consitutionally protected right?
 
PirateMk1 said:
I think that exception as well any other conceivable exceptions should be removed. If you search or enter a residence you MUST have a warrant regardless.
Click to expand...
I actually know a guy who got arrested for simple marijuana possession because he had his stash out on the kitchen table ready to roll, it was in plain view, and when the officer went to serve a minor complaint he saw it with no effort. If that officer would have started poking his head around trying to expand plain view to more than it was ever intended though................contest that evidence.
 
I think it should depend on the charges. Serious charges like murder and other things all evidence should be on the table. No one should get off on that kind of stuff due to technicalities.
 
mak2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
 
digsbe said:
I think it should depend on the charges. Serious charges like murder and other things all evidence should be on the table. No one should get off on that kind of stuff due to technicalities.
Click to expand...

no it should not. The rules are in place to protect everyone. If the government is in clear violation of rights then evidence is thrown out and should be. Now if the police can should they would have eventually found the evidence then it can come back in but acting in violations of the Constitution is a problem.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...
My question is simple, ... why didn't the cops search it legally? Clearly if they are searching to the extent that they are watching videos for content, then seems they had enough suspicion about something that they should've been able to set up a legal search.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I actually know a guy who got arrested for simple marijuana possession because he had his stash out on the kitchen table ready to roll, it was in plain view, and when the officer went to serve a minor complaint he saw it with no effort. If that officer would have started poking his head around trying to expand plain view to more than it was ever intended though................contest that evidence.
Click to expand...
This was over 25 years ago when I shared a house with two other guys. All of us were in our early 20s.

I was home alone one day. A police officer comes to the door. He's seeking any information he can get regarding a burglary a few doors down. There's a bong sitting on an end table right next to the door. He had to have seen it.

I was very polite and cooperative, though I had nothing to contribute, as I'm a very quiet keep-my-curtains-closed type of person to begin with. The officer thanked me for my time, and we wished each other a nice day and he left.

Later, I read my roommates the riot act. Explained what had happened... and what could have happened. They were cool about it, and we all agreed to put stuff away out of view when we were done.

Still amazes me to this day that he didn't see it... though I think he did and just didn't feel the need to do anything about it as that wasn't his purpose at the moment, and we had never had a complaint against us, and so on.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I think that exception as well any other conceivable exceptions should be removed. If you search or enter a residence you MUST have a warrant regardless.
Click to expand...

It is a helpful and reasonable exception for when the police see someone being harmed. People engaged in harmless illegal and those who believe in maintaining a right to privacy should never open their door all the way when talking to cops. That requires being assertive sometimes since they will often stroll right into your home if you let them.
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
I think that exception as well any other conceivable exceptions should be removed. If you search or enter a residence you MUST have a warrant regardless.
Click to expand...
I can't quite go that far. But, I don't think we should be allowing them to essentially give boilerplate justifications when they do act questionably as we do now. Simply saying "I smelled marijuana and heard a toilet flush", especially for just about every instance, isn't good enough.
 
radcen said:
This was over 25 years ago when I shared a house with two other guys. All of us were in our early 20s.

I was home alone one day. A police officer comes to the door. He's seeking any information he can get regarding a burglary a few doors down. There's a bong sitting on an end table right next to the door. He had to have seen it.

I was very polite and cooperative, though I had nothing to contribute, as I'm a very quiet keep-my-curtains-closed type of person to begin with. The officer thanked me for my time, and we wished each other a nice day and he left.

Later, I read my roommates the riot act. Explained what had happened... and what could have happened. They were cool about it, and we all agreed to put stuff away out of view when we were done.

Still amazes me to this day that he didn't see it... though I think he did and just didn't feel the need to do anything about it as that wasn't his purpose at the moment, and we had never had a complaint against us, and so on.
Click to expand...
The officer probably figured that a bong wasn't worth diverting attention from the burglary, which was cool on his part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom