Zero wrote:And how will the presence of a warrant ensure that evidence is valid? Adding another layer doesn't mean anything, it just means that a warrant has been issued. Real evidence can be found with or without a warrant, and fake evidence can be faked with or without a warrant too. What's the difference?
Planting evidence, with all the paperwork, the various checks, the need to ask for permission before the search, etc., it's obviously more difficult.
Or are you trying to argue that living in a police state does not make conviction of innocents easier?
Melchior wrote:Planting evidence, with all the paperwork, the various checks, the need to ask for permission before the search, etc., it's obviously more difficult.
Alright, the paperwork and all that makes getting ANY evidence more difficult. How is this exclusive to planting evidence? Can you give any specific reason beyond the "it's obvious" bullshit?
Melchior wrote:Or are you trying to argue that living in a police state does not make conviction of innocents easier?
I never said that, but it makes conviction of the guilty easier too. I never brought up the police state bit at all, just pointed out that you're full of shit when you say adding more paperwork makes planting evidence any more difficult than finding real evidence.
Zero wrote:Alright, the paperwork and all that makes getting ANY evidence more difficult. How is this exclusive to planting evidence? Can you give any specific reason beyond the "it's obvious" bullshit?
What do you think is written in "paperwork"? It is more difficult to have proper paperwork for planted evidence, because, at the very least, you need someone else willing to help you.
Zero wrote:
I never said that, but it makes conviction of the guilty easier too.
False. It makes conviction of certain kinds of guilty persons easier. Besides that, you said that, because a state without any checks on the operating of the police, is a police state. Why do you think that the fourth emendement exists?
Admiral Valdemar wrote:This is why we have Internal Affairs, but even they are not omniscient and are still human.
I am very interested in how other states and countries set up their Internal Affairs organisations. In Victoria, I understand that the Office of Police Integrity is made up of mainstream officers who rotate in and out of the regular service after several years in the OPI. Their identities are presumably known, and they come under constant attack from both the Police Unions as well as the media.
I've heard that in other countries IA officers are undercover and the organisation is separate from the Police Force they're tasked to observe. Other systems I've heard about is civilian oversight of the Police Force. I am curious as to how this is handled outside of here.
In NSW, the Police Integrity Commision is an independent body. To quote from their website:
"It's made up of lawyers, accountants, current and former police investigators and analysts. The Commission is prevented from having serving or former members of the NSW Police Service on its staff and its police investigators are all drawn from other Australian and overseas police services."
It was set up after a massive top down look at the NSW police that happened in the 1990's and early 2000's, leading to many reforms of many parts of the NSW force.
In the UK, we have what are called Ghost Squads which act freely and undercover in any police force in the country. There was a good drama series recently by Channel 4 that looks into this line of work (might be able to find the DVD or torrent) and from what I know, these people essentially follow up on any whistleblowing and randomly check forces too. It's not unlike MI5 officers working undercover in gangs or terrorist cells, only the infiltrated are the boys in blue.
Keevan_Colton wrote:How exactly does excluding evidence protect the innocent?
If someone is innocent, then there surely is no evidence of the crime to exclude?
It's there to prevent police from abusing their power. The fact that a search has to go through proper channels means that a police officer needs more than a funny feeling in order to take up your time, invade your privacy and potentially destroy your property. It's also to prevent searches from being used as a harassment tactic. Subjecting searches to due process is more than just "paperwork."
Also, the fact is that there are a lot more instances of corrupt police officers, even with the laws in place, than there are murders.
"Remember, being materialistic means never having to acknowledge your feelings"-Brent Sienna, PVP
"In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter in to Judgement Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own devising, and a serious attitude problem."- Rick Moen
Keevan_Colton wrote:How exactly does excluding evidence protect the innocent?
If someone is innocent, then there surely is no evidence of the crime to exclude?
It's there to prevent police from abusing their power. The fact that a search has to go through proper channels means that a police officer needs more than a funny feeling in order to take up your time, invade your privacy and potentially destroy your property. It's also to prevent searches from being used as a harassment tactic. Subjecting searches to due process is more than just "paperwork."
It's the same bleating again, abusing powers! If it wasnt against the rules then it wouldnt be an abuse of their power would it?
What I'd like to know is the justification for these rules since it does allow people to literally get away with murder. There is a new one here, "prevents inconvenience".
Also, the fact is that there are a lot more instances of corrupt police officers, even with the laws in place, than there are murders.
Oh really? Got some statistics to back that one up?
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Also, the fact is that there are a lot more instances of corrupt police officers, even with the laws in place, than there are murders.
Oh really? Got some statistics to back that one up?
There are more opportunities in a single day for a police officer to abuse his power than someone to just decide to shoot another person. This becomes evident when you look at any country without strict oversight of the police: In most of Latin America, Eastern Europe and anywhere else that's stable enough to have a police force but not stable enough to control it. The police are basically parasites on the citizenry, demanding bribes, molesting citizens at a whim and using the power they're given to carry out personal vendettas.
Evidentiary laws are more than "convenience." Places without these laws end up with societies that live in fear of the police force. Maybe the exact punishment is silly; why punish the victim for a cop's misconduct? Maybe just punishing the officer in question would be better. But the principal is there to keep the police on the side of the people they're there to protect.
"Remember, being materialistic means never having to acknowledge your feelings"-Brent Sienna, PVP
"In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter in to Judgement Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own devising, and a serious attitude problem."- Rick Moen
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
The motivation is fear of a police state where cops can run roughshod over the citizenry. This motivation is sound. However:
PrinceofLowLight wrote:Maybe the exact punishment is silly; why punish the victim for a cop's misconduct? Maybe just punishing the officer in question would be better.
This is putting it mildly. Even sound principles do not make the law that is based on them immune to being nonsense.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
In order to obtain a search warrant an investigator must provide a valid reason/suspicion to the judge. Therefore he cannot simply search his mother-in-laws home on a whim to find something illegal or plant something. There has to be a reason to search. That is a warrant's purpose.
You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil—you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself. –Dan Barker
I don't see why it's necessary to actually disregard otherwise damning evidence just because it's obtained illegally. Why not simply punish the officer who failed to follow procedure, but use the evidence anyways?
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
wolveraptor wrote:I don't see why it's necessary to actually disregard otherwise damning evidence just because it's obtained illegally. Why not simply punish the officer who failed to follow procedure, but use the evidence anyways?
Think about it. If the police know they can search your house illegally and still prosecute why bother with warrants? The problem with preventing the planting of evidence alone would be a boondoggle ("So I got this gut feeling he did it, searched the house alone, and found a gun.") Not to mention how you're going to prevent idealist (or racist) cops from going into places where they have no evidence to snoop for crimes, and that even if they don't find what they want in the first place they could always find something else to hold against their 'suspect' ("So I got this gut feeling he did it, searched the house alone, I didn't find the gun but I found a couple bags of pot.") In short it leaves the system way to open for abuse.
That being said there are times where evidence found illegally should be taken into account. I.E. I believe there was a case once where the police found a Surveillance Video of the defendant commiting a robbery, however the Video was suppressed by the Judge, and the defendant was allowed to offer an alibi that he had been elsewhere at the time of the crime, and I think was acquitted.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic
'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan
-- Asuka
