+111

If someone gets illegally obtained evidence to convict a criminal, it should still be allowed in court.

74%Agree26%Disagree
Kristaas avatar Politics
Share
0 13

But to be fair, you'd have to have another trial to punish whoever got the information in an illegal way.

@PinkSponge But to be fair, you'd have to have another trial to punish whoever got the information in an illegal way.

I agree. if the person who obtained the evidence is willing to go to trial for obtaining it illegally, then it should be used.

Then there would be nothing to stop Law Enforcement Officers from illegally obtaining evidence. Believe me, I'm a law enforcement major, and I'd love it if illegally obtained evidence were admissible in court, but that would infringe upon the rights of citizens. There would be nothing to prevent police wire tapping, torture of suspects, around the clock interrogation, and unwarranted searches.

John_Smiths avatar John_Smith Disagree +22Reply

Not at all... The ends do not justify the means. I can't believe this is positive.

TheBlindMans avatar TheBlindMan Disagree +17Reply
@TheBlindMan Not at all... The ends do not justify the means. I can't believe this is positive.

Overall, I think it could help the process a lot - but the issue is how far does it go? For example, information obtained by torture should not be allowed. And law enforcement agencies shouldn't be permitted to use illegal means to obtain evidence. But for example, if documents stolen from a bank by an employee can prove the bank is a massive tax evader, it should be allowed.

You have got to be kidding me. Police would be able to break into your house whenever they wanted to. How would you like waking up to a convoy of officers searching through your possessions?

There needs to be a way for illegally obtained evidence to be valid, but without causing police corruption. I think that if the evidence was obtained illegally but the police didn't go out of their way to infringe upon the persons rights, then it should still be used. Like if the police just happened to have suspicion that something was there, and they didn't have a warrant, but they did have a good reason to believe the person was guilty. And maybe the judge could be the one to determine the legitimacy of the excuse of the police/investigators.

I just think that it's ridiculous to not count evidence obtained illegally even if it proves the person guilty. Even if the police has to go through some sort of trial, the evidence shouldn't be thrown out. Evidence is evidence.

WHERE IS YOUR AMIRITE, FOOL???

Anonymous +1Reply
@WHERE IS YOUR AMIRITE, FOOL???

I thought it went in automatically, lol.

If you've already got the evidence, and it points to someone being guilty, you can't just ignore it, illegal or not.

It's happened before, when police found evidence proving who a murderer was, but they couldn't use it just because it was obtained without a warrant. The murderer walked free.

When people's rights have already been violated in order to obtain evidence, don't make it have been in vain. Use the evidence to prevent more human rights abuses in the future.

@cherryblaster If you've already got the evidence, and it points to someone being guilty, you can't just ignore it, illegal or...

Yes but once you legitimize illegally obtained evidence, that opens the door for police to abuse their power- they could stamp on everyone's rights and search without good reason knowing that if by chance that they found something substantial, it would be admissible, despite how they obtained it. You're saying that it should be allowed to "prevent more human rights abuses in the future." but this in itself violates people's rights.

rowannes avatar rowanne Disagree +8Reply
@rowanne Yes but once you legitimize illegally obtained evidence, that opens the door for police to abuse their power- they...

Allowing illegal evidence isn't the same as legalizing it. The police who obtain the evidence will still face charges.

@cherryblaster Allowing illegal evidence isn't the same as legalizing it. The police who obtain the evidence will still face charges.

But that defeats the purpose. Making something illegal implies that it's immoral and/or harmful in some way- even if the police did have to face repercussions the fact that the evidence was admissible to begin with implies it's 'okay' to do something illegal. And let's be honest- police and the military both already have a lengthy history of abusing their power and failing to properly punish their own- it's highly doubtful that if this were the case an officer would have to face serious charges.

rowannes avatar rowanne Disagree +1Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.