• 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

Kreton

Doesn't know
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
13,350
Reaction score
6,591
Location
Across the street from the family across the stree
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 police know they wont be able to use the evidence they will not be tempted.
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?
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
If the evidence is still permissible then people aren't being protected from illegal search and seizure.

Considering that cops are rarely punished to any reasonable level it would be unwise to allow illegal evidence collection to be permissible in court.
 
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?

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.
 
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. Now the just gets all PO'd at me, but what, exactly, can he charge me with? I did not steal the pot, illegal search and seizure? Breaking and entering? what if hte door was unlocked or the LEO dressed up as a pizza guy and was let in. I think allowing illegally gained evidence in court would do far more harm in the long run.
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?

The victims rights don't supercede any body elses rights. As horrible as a criminal may be, they still have their rights.

A victim has a right to justice, but the criminal still has a right to be free of illegal search and seizures.

Justice obtained via illegality is retribution or vengence, as it is not "just".
 
If the police know they wont be able to use the evidence they will not be tempted.

I agree with this, because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:

it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).
 
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.
 
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.

But until convicted, there is no legal determination that someone has broken the law in the first place. You are advocating that criminally procured evidence be used to convict someone who is not yet guilty of anything, because you they might be.

The point of the fourth amendment isn't to punish police. Though they should be punished for violating it. The point is to protect people from the government invading their homes, persons, and property without public oversight. They cannot get into your business without probable cause. It's protecting your business in the first place, not punishing them but still getting into your business as much as they like.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

I think once you called into question the credibility of the cop who obtained the evidence the validity of the evidence itself - not just how it was obtained but whether it's legitimate evidence - has to be questioned as well. If the cop was willing to illegally obtain it did he also perhaps plant it as well? If we're going to toss someone in jail the evidence has to be above reproach.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

This is an argument over if the ends justify the means.

Yes...everybody wants someone to pay for committing a crime.

In the grand scheme of things...we don't want cops banging down our doors without the sufficient requirements to get a warrant. That should never be acceptable and cops and everyone else knows they gain absolutely nothing by doing 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.

But ultimately, even if you DID find some other ways to strongly deter it...it comes down to the fact that a person is still having an illegal search and siezure done against them and is being penalized due to that illegal search and siezure.

It'd be like saying that it should be illegal for the police to take someone's firearm, but that the firearms should still remain confiscated.

or it'd be like saying it should be illegal for the government can ban you from writing a book on your political views, but the ban still would stay in place.

If you're constitutionally protected from illegal search and seizure, then it'd be unreasonable to allow the fruits of that illegal search and seizure to be used against you.
 
I'm not sure many District Attorneys would want to use illegally obtained evidence anyway.
 
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.

Ever heard the saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right? It's similar to what the CIA does to interrogate with torture, justifying the methods with the results. If it's wrong, then no reason is worth it, and its results shouldn't be allowed by punishing the violator. By NOT allowing the evidence, a message is sent that presumably innocent citizens can't have their rights violated, even if they're a suspect.
 
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?

There have been several very good points made against so far, and I will say that it would be a horrible idea in the long run. Some initial thoughts...

  • Police could easily plant evidence to settle a score, or simply enhance their own career.
  • Warrants would be effectively rendered moot.
  • Police are rarely held accountable as it is, even when they screw up outrageously.
  • Our justice system is for all circumstances, not individual cases, and we have to keep the overall view in mind.
  • Suspect's rights are actually rights for the innocent. The fact that the truly guilty sometimes gain benefit also is unfortunate, but protecting the innocent is just as important, if not more so.
 
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.

Exactly. What did Thomas More say? From 0:12 is where it gets interesting.
 
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.

If a male cop illegally searched me and found a joint in my snatch and it was used against me, then a month later pulled you over and for some reason he thought it smelled like pot, would you feel he had the right to stick his hand inside you?
 
Back
Top Bottom