LAW
A video shows the guilt of the defendant, but because it was recorded illegally it is not admissible as evidence and the defendant goes free. Is this absurd justice?
No.
No
Yes
Was the illegal taping carried out law-enforcement authorities (the police or the prosecutors)? It makes a difference to the answer!
Even so, we've drifted so far from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment (the source of our modern "exclusionary rule," banning the use of illegally obtained evidence) that it's not clear how we can go back. The Fourth Amendment is now interpreted so as to *require* warrants: a search with a warrant is a *good* search. But read the very short text of the amendment: it clearly doesn't like warrants! It bans "general warrants" outright, and it restricts other warrants to limited circumstances.
What circumstances? "Reasonable" ones. Who decides what's "reasonable"? Today, that's the federal judiciary. When the 4th Am. was written, it was -- juries! Aggrieved citizens were expected to sue offending law-enforcement officers -- and to win, if they could persuade the jury that the search wasn't reasonable!
How do we get back to a system like that today, as an alternative to the way we now enforce the 4th Am., i.e., the exclusionary rule? I wish i knew.   | | |
No. This is an example of the justice system working.
No.
No. This is REAL justice. If the video was obtained in such a flagrantly unlawful manner that a court has seen fit to rule it inadmissible, then the acquittal of the defendant is a necessary ramification of the improper actions of police.
If we choose NOT to throw out such inadmissible evidence, we are giving free reign to auhtorities to abuse their powers. It is a VERY short leap from abusing power against the "guilty" to applying those same abuses against the innocent.
I may be required to defence the guilty from time to time in order to ensure the continued safety of the innocent.
I'll let others answer this one.
Not absurd.
no. since there is no evidential proof, and as that is how the legal system works, only once there is a way found out through which this video may be proven to be taken legally, then it coiuld be present to the court as evidential material, there is no absurdity to justice
Unable to tolerate the illegally obtained evidence. Bad procedure is sanctioned by invalidity, and also helps in the future act according to the law by helping to improve the judicial system.
It is not justice at all. It is an application of the relevant law. Justice would see the guilty convicted and the innocent acquitted. Rules about the admissibility of evidence are devised to dissuade improper practices by investigating agencies. However, they are sometimes judicially scrutinised too finely with the consequence that evidence which should be admitted as probative of guilt is not, purely because of a technical breach. That is poor comfort for a victim who, having endured the criminal act, suffers the added indignity of seeing the guilty walk free. They would say that justice had not been done. Perhaps they would go so far as to say such a result was absurd justice.
Not necessarily. Again it depends on the circumstances of the case.
I do not practice criminal law.
No, it is lazy investigating. Having said that, where cameras are being used there must always be warning signs and I always ensure these are in place when I do audits and site inspections to prevent just this sort of thing happening
It seems to be however I think this depends of the circumstances which makes the recording illegal. I am not a criminal specialist (and they may disagree with me) but it is important to define what is admissible in the courts otherwise we may become a society where there is no concept of privacy.
Your statement is not always true. When a video is obtained illegally, it should be excluded. The system must maintain integrity. Otherwise, we will eventually get rid of search and seizure restrictions, law enforcement will eventually have the right to enter your home without cause, etc. That slippery slope will end in a very, very bad place for the regular citizen. If you want an increase in innocent people in jail, that is a great way to start...get rig of evidence authentication.
All evidence should be obtained in a legal manner so it can be admissible as evidence in Court. |
| 1 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>
| |
|
99700 interviews created
INVITE YOUR FRIENDS