Excluding Evidence

[acludem]

What sentences do you propose for cops in cases of illegally obtained evidence? Also, won't that put prosecutors in a major conflict of interest? Wouldn't they just tell the officer to go ahead and obtain evidence illegally and then just plea bargain the case away for a slap on the wrist?

You aren't operating in reality. The exclusionary rule is absolutely necessary to protect society from corrupt cops who think they are above the law. How can you possibly justify a conviction of lawbreaking based on evidence gathered by cops who were breaking the law?

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

What sentences do you propose for cops in cases of illegally obtained evidence? Also, won't that put prosecutors in a major conflict of interest? Wouldn't they just tell the officer to go ahead and obtain evidence illegally and then just plea bargain the case away for a slap on the wrist?

You aren't operating in reality. The exclusionary rule is absolutely necessary to protect society from corrupt cops who think they are above the law. How can you possibly justify a conviction of lawbreaking based on evidence gathered by cops who were breaking the law?

acludem

I can justify if through the people that guy won't hurt or kill. The guy's guilty. If we just let him go, we're passing his sentence on to his next victim.

 

[acludem]

That's an awfully big conclusion your jumping to. This is all the more reason to make sure cops follow the law. Unfortunately, society sometimes has to pay the price when cops break the law. That's why it's imperative the cops be well trained and that bad cops be weeded out. I'd rather chance letting a guilty person go free than wrongly imprison or even execute an innocent one.

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved"

acludem

 

[pegwinn]

Rules of evidence, including the exclusionary rule, exist to protect the citizenry, especially innocent citizens, from the abuse of power by the authorities. Throw those rules out the window, and you have a police state.

Wrong. The only time the defence wants evidence excluded is when they know it makes em look bad. My personal favorite is lawfully gathered evidence that is thrown out because it is "inflammatory". To arrive at justice one must know the truth. Good, bad, and ugly as it were.

Screw that...mandatory sentences! Everyone gets the same punishment for the same crime.

No problem here. Kinda like price tags at JC Penny in my view.

I concur...was pointing out that you wouldn't need a jury to decide the truth if that was all that was presented.

What else but the truth would you want presented?

What sentences do you propose for cops in cases of illegally obtained evidence? Also, won't that put prosecutors in a major conflict of interest? Wouldn't they just tell the officer to go ahead and obtain evidence illegally and then just plea bargain the case away for a slap on the wrist?

You aren't operating in reality. The exclusionary rule is absolutely necessary to protect society from corrupt cops who think they are above the law. How can you possibly justify a conviction of lawbreaking based on evidence gathered by cops who were breaking the law?

acludem

I'd prosecute the cop as a felony. With mandatory prison time when convicted. Since the same rules would apply at his trial, and he'd go to the same big house that he sent folks to......

The E-Rule penalizes innocent people who are victims. You have valid points about corruption and all, but your concerns cannot be allowed to outweigh societies need to prevent future innocent victims. Justice is about everyone, not just the accused.

I can justify it by choke slamming the cops in a separate trial. It's called impartiality.

That's an awfully big conclusion your jumping to. This is all the more reason to make sure cops follow the law. Unfortunately, society sometimes has to pay the price when cops break the law. That's why it's imperative the cops be well trained and that bad cops be weeded out. I'd rather chance letting a guilty person go free than wrongly imprison or even execute an innocent one.

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved"

acludem

All the more reason to perfect truth machines and use them. All the more reason to place the facts of the case without regard at that moment to how they got there. If it is proven that the evidence was illegally gathered, repeat as needed.

Ben didn't have the resources we do. Amazing that we can put a man on the moon, but cannot perfect a process to protect the innocent, punish the guilty, and protect everyone. Bet if Ben were alive to day, he'd be on my side.

 

[MissileMan]

What else but the truth would you want presented?

I think you misunderstood me. Currently, the jury has to try to figure out the truth from a whole pile of garbage, most of which is thrown around by the defense to raise doubt. IF, the only thing allowed at trial was truth, a jury wouldn't be needed to decide it, that's all there'd be. As a matter of fact, if the truth were already known, technically, you wouldn't even need a trial. If you knew for certain that bad guy A had committed crime B, sentence him under the mandatory sentence C.

 

[Gunny]

That's an awfully big conclusion your jumping to. This is all the more reason to make sure cops follow the law. Unfortunately, society sometimes has to pay the price when cops break the law. That's why it's imperative the cops be well trained and that bad cops be weeded out. I'd rather chance letting a guilty person go free than wrongly imprison or even execute an innocent one.

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved"

acludem

Why do you libs always quote the Founding Fathers as if their words are unimpeachable? More than one of them was an idealistic nitwit.

No one is saying allow the police's crime to go unnoticed and/or unpunished. They should be held accountable for their actions.

However, that does not negate the evidence as evidence. Why let a known criminal walk when the evidence exists to convict?

 

[Hobbit]

That's an awfully big conclusion your jumping to. This is all the more reason to make sure cops follow the law. Unfortunately, society sometimes has to pay the price when cops break the law. That's why it's imperative the cops be well trained and that bad cops be weeded out. I'd rather chance letting a guilty person go free than wrongly imprison or even execute an innocent one.

To quote Benjamin Franklin: "That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved"

acludem

Acludem, you still have yet to explain to me how including valid, authentic evidence that was illegally obtained has any possibility of sending an innocent man to prison