• 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 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...

No, illegally obtained evidence absolutely should not be admissible in court.
 
americanwoman said:
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?
Click to expand...

Mmmm...twat pot.

*drools*
 
Kreton said:
Doesn't the victim of the crime deserve justice?
Click to expand...
Absolutely they deserve justice. Lots of people deserve things they don't necessarily get. Even if this particular case is air-tight, is this person's justice worth the other instances of false imprisonment in other crimes from corrupt police exploiting a lack of accountability?
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
No offense intended, but I think it is true. I think that is exactly what would happen.

If we're not willing to enforce the piddly punishments we have on the books now, where do you think we'll get the resolve to suddenly get tough on those whom we already put on a pedestal and give great benefit of the doubt? Undeserved benefit of the doubt, I will add.

Your scenario, while fine on paper, would require a HUGE reversal of societal mindset. Simply passing a few new laws wouldn't be enough.
 
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...

Your problem here is what you think justice is. The reason it can't be used is because there is a procedure to follow and the standard to put someone in jeopardy of life and liberty should be very very high. The cops who do this are often given a slap if it is a mistake and can be severely punished if it is done on purpose. Our society is based on the idea that the government doesn't have free reign to investigate us and need probable cause to collect evidence on us in our homes. That is why we have warrants and the system to obtain them.

Now if the discovery is eventual it can be brought back in, but the minute we allow police to simply go into our homes to collect evidence on a whim then we are no longer a free society. Guilty people go free because it is better that that happen than have a government without rules to protect our privacy.
 
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...

so you don't like the constitution....what else can we throw out.
 
Sababa said:
so you don't like the constitution....what else can we throw out.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what she means at all. It is a shame that evidence that points to someones clear and obvious guilt in a crime has to be discarded, but the principle behind it is more important than the fairness of any one case.
 
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.
 
grip said:
I don't think that's what she means at all. It is a shame that evidence that points to someones clear and obvious guilt in a crime has to be discarded, but the principle behind it is more important than the fairness of any one case.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a shame, but if history weren't full of people in positions of authority abusing said authority then these protections would never have been deemed necessary to begin with.

Evil resides on both sides of the line of justice. We shouldn't forget that.
 
radcen said:
Yes, it is a shame, but if history weren't full of people in positions of authority abusing said authority then these protections would never have been deemed necessary to begin with.

Evil resides on both sides of the line of justice. We shouldn't forget that.
Click to expand...

It speaks more to the imperfect nature of the legal system. It's the best thing we have to dispense justice but it's got obvious flaws.
 
radcen said:
Yes, it is a shame, but if history weren't full of people in positions of authority abusing said authority then these protections would never have been deemed necessary to begin with.

Evil resides on both sides of the line of justice. We shouldn't forget that.
Click to expand...

Actually it should be evil resides on both sides of the law. Because when it is on the side of the law it is no longer justice.
 
grip said:
It speaks more to the imperfect nature of the legal system. It's the best thing we have to dispense justice but it's got obvious flaws.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the imperfections of human nature, but yeah.


Quag said:
Actually it should be evil resides on both sides of the law. Because when it is on the side of the law it is no longer justice.
Click to expand...
That's what I meant, just phrased awkwardly.
 
grip said:
I don't think that's what she means at all. It is a shame that evidence that points to someones clear and obvious guilt in a crime has to be discarded, but the principle behind it is more important than the fairness of any one case.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right, Grip, but you know how some people get. "OMG let's get rid of the Constitution!!11!!" :lol:
 
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...


Only if you don't care about the Constitution and are willing to throw it out the window. I for one....would oppose such a thing.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...


Don't kid yourself....cops fabricate police reports all the time. When they can't bust the guy....they arrest him and then write a police report saying that they saw him engage in a hand to hand sale.
 
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...

There had to be more going on than that...because there is a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule...in other words, if cops reasonably rely on an invalid warrant, the evidence is not excluded because the idea behind the exclusionary rule is to dissuade purposeful illegal and unlawful searches. If the cops relied on an informant that turned out to be unreliable, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply. I suspect that it probably had to do with the cops manufacturing the informant and otherwise doctoring evidence in order to "justify" an otherwise illegal search.
 
Superfly said:
You are exactly right, Grip, but you know how some people get. "OMG let's get rid of the Constitution!!11!!" :lol:
Click to expand...



I knew what you meant, people want to take what you say out of context for some reason to make a point?

I've seen TV shows where the judge throws out evidence of a murder that would convict, because of the poisonous tree rule, and come out of my chair cursing. It's something that there's not a good exception for because of the principle of rights violations and innocence presumption.
 
grip said:
I knew what you meant, people want to take what you say out of context for some reason to make a point?

I've seen TV shows where the judge throws out evidence of a murder that would convict, because of the poisonous tree rule, and come out of my chair cursing. It's something that there's not a good exception for because of the principle of rights violations and innocence presumption.
Click to expand...

There was evidence in the Casey Anthony trial that could not be used, that a lot of legal analysts said would have put her in the chair had it been allowed. That is what pisses me off - that an obviously guilty person walked because not all of the evidence was admissible.
 
Superfly said:
There was evidence in the Casey Anthony trial that could not be used, that a lot of legal analysts said would have put her in the chair had it been allowed. That is what pisses me off - that an obviously guilty person walked because not all of the evidence was admissible.
Click to expand...

People often do pay in one way or the other. You damage your own soul more when you commit crimes, than to the victims. Look at OJ, who's thuggish actions eventually landed him in jail for a long time. His health is bad and he's probably miserable. Most criminals are just people who've made bad choices and severe mistakes, not necessarily monsters.
 
grip said:
People often do pay in one way or the other. You damage your own soul more when you commit crimes, than to the victims. Look at OJ, who's thuggish actions eventually landed him in jail for a long time. His health is bad and he's probably miserable. Most criminals are just people who've made bad choices and severe mistakes, not necessarily monsters.
Click to expand...

Sorry - I will go to my grave believing that Casey Anthony is a monster.
 
disneydude said:
There had to be more going on than that...because there is a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule...in other words, if cops reasonably rely on an invalid warrant, the evidence is not excluded because the idea behind the exclusionary rule is to dissuade purposeful illegal and unlawful searches. If the cops relied on an informant that turned out to be unreliable, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply. I suspect that it probably had to do with the cops manufacturing the informant and otherwise doctoring evidence in order to "justify" an otherwise illegal search.
Click to expand...

Not according to the news reports, though I admit they do get stuff wrong.
 
Superfly said:
Sorry - I will go to my grave believing that Casey Anthony is a monster.
Click to expand...


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."
 
History, and situations in other nations, show that admitting illegally obtained evidence into a trial is likely to encourage more illegal searches and torture of witnesses and suspects and less privacy and freedom for everyone. The Supreme Court has already created too many exceptions to the fourth amendment.
 
Superfly said:
There was evidence in the Casey Anthony trial that could not be used, that a lot of legal analysts said would have put her in the chair had it been allowed. That is what pisses me off - that an obviously guilty person walked because not all of the evidence was admissible.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom