 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 347 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614103 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Does anyone study law here? I'm just curious about that whole.. I don't know what it's called in english, but an approximation would be "status of the evidence." It's when sometimes rather conclusive evidence is disregarded because it was appropriated through some "illegal" means.. I'm mainly wondering if this is a tv-constructed thing and if it isn't, then what is the reasoning behind it? Why not press charges on the person who obtained this evidence illegally for breaking the law instead of having it exempt from being evidence in the case where it is evidence? ...or something... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes. I've studied law as part of both a bachelors and masters degree and got a first and distinction in them respectively and am considering submitting an article or two to law journals on technology law. I think the logic behind it (although don't quote me on this and I'm not sure if the reason is actually detailed anywhere) is as follows: If you accept illegally gathered evidence you are: a) Accepting evidence from someone who is, by their very nature (they illegally gathered evidence) a criminal. Not in itself reason to be discounted, but an "unreliable" witness' evidence is less valuable than that of a "pillar of the community" who has a clean record. b) It will encourage people to gather evidence in future in an illegal manner. Where do you draw the line; Is beating information (I mean verifiable info, such as where a body is buried- not just a confession) out of a suspect acceptable? c) Closely related to the other two; If the police get prosecutions based on illegally gathered evidence, it further erodes people's respect for and willingness to co-operate with, the police. Effectively damaging future prosecutions There are exceptions to the normal rules of gathering evidence. Usually in relation to particularly abhorrent crimes such as paedophilia. For example, police searching a pc for evidence of fraud are allowed to bust you for any kiddie porn they find on it, even if the warrant was only granted for a fraud investigation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm.. they usually have some sort of reasoning behind something like that, but... if it's a, it wouldn't help much, as while the person who illegally obtained the evidence may very well lie, the evidence itself can not (if someone has obtained a video of someone beating someone else up by stealing it from the guy on trial who videotaped it himself, for instance). b could more or less be effectively countered by prosecuting those who did something illegal to obtain the evidence, which would greatly influence their career in law enforcement, if not downright end it.. it would also make the thing where the official stance of a government or court or whatever, should be to not break the law in any way, not even to obtain conclusive evidence, as the government would distance itself from the person who did the crime, only not from the evidence he obtained... and c would have to be weighed against what people feel when conclusive evidence is disregarded in a case and the criminal walks free... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you want to know the law ask a dodgy scouser...they know more than any lawyer or university graduate who did a couple of modules on law. In addition there is the area of entrapment. This is where an 'agent of the state' acts as provocateur with the intention of causing a person to commit an illegal act. Whilst entrapment cannot be used as a defense the court can 'stay' the proceedings if it feels that it would damage the integrity of the criminal justice system to allow the state to punish a person the state had caused to commit a crime. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
