31–40 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood this. If I gather evidence against somebody illegally, and it proves their guilt, shouldn't we both go to jail?
The structure is to keep police officers honest which is more important than a particular person going to jail. The operating principle is that a dishonest police force is more dangerous than a criminal who was caught using illegal evidence. Typically the criminal will commit another crime and if you get evidence against them legally, then you can prosecute them for the new crime.
Wouldn't the right word be "principle"?
Won't someone think of the children?
Are you serious or being facetious? If you are being serious, I'd like to direct you to the wikipedia page on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children "In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy"
And now we find that when it comes time to actually use these tools to protect the children, the secrecy of the tools is more important.
I don't quite see why they can't use the same method they use in espionage cases in this situation - if there's classified evidence, the defence lawyers need to get security clearances and are under the same obligation not to further disclose the information as anyone else (even to their own client).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you trust the evidence of someone who you can prove(to the point of conviction) is willing to do illegal things to gather the evidence?
The evidence is the evidence. A criminal is a criminal. Someone up this chain of thread was making that point.
When you gather evidence illegally, it's easier to fake it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the majority of it probably isn't 'how the world should be', a man is going free because (we speculate) that the evidence against him was gathered illegally. This bit probably is 'how the world should be'.
I've never understood this. If I gather evidence against somebody illegally, and it proves their guilt, shouldn't we both go to jail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the majority of it probably isn't 'how the world should be', a man is going free because (we speculate) that the evidence against him was gathered illegally. This bit probably is 'how the world should be'.
How so? In general if a criminal goes free despite having evidence against him just because the evidence was not obtained legally ... it sounds rather wrong to me.
So does the investigation agency who broke the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you trust the evidence of someone who you can prove(to the point of conviction) is willing to do illegal things to gather the evidence?
The evidence is the evidence. A criminal is a criminal. Someone up this chain of thread was making that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The structure is to keep police officers honest which is more important than a particular person going to jail. The operating principle is that a dishonest police force is more dangerous than a criminal who was caught using illegal evidence. Typically the criminal will commit another crime and if you get evidence against them legally, then you can prosecute them for the new crime.
> The operating principal Wouldn't the right word be "principle"?
- is this only an issue for the prosecution because it happened before the changes to rule 41?