Palin Discussion [split]

[Darth Wong]

Ooh, Mike Wong says its true, it must be! Get off your fucking high horse.

Which exact part of my argument do you feel was predicated exclusively upon my personal authority? Was it the part where I said that "due process" does not necessarily imply what you say it implies? Because there is no burden of proof for that; I am merely challenging your claim, which you never backed up.

Or was it the part where I pointed out that you can't categorize every crime-related idea as either "soft on crime" or "tough on crime"? Because that is merely pointing out your use of a black/white fallacy.

You have claimed that my argument was somehow an appeal to personal authority. I challenge you to back up that accusation.

[Gaidin]

Yes, because that is totally how it is in the rest of the world.
Obtaining evidence unlawfully can be punished (i.e. the individual that committed the illegal act to obtain the evidence is punished) without declaring the evidence void.

Obtaining evidence illegally pretty much violates the 4th ammendment. So we're cool with due process but unreasonable searches and seizures of said evidence are ok?

I'll grant you that I am assuming that the judge has said there is not enough of a probable cause to grant a warrant. Otherwise there'd be no reason to do this...

That IS what you're saying when you say punish the individual but leave the evidence in. I remember this whole thing about illegal wiretaps recently...

[Darth Wong]

Yes, because that is totally how it is in the rest of the world.
Obtaining evidence unlawfully can be punished (i.e. the individual that committed the illegal act to obtain the evidence is punished) without declaring the evidence void.

Obtaining evidence illegally pretty much violates the 4th ammendment. So we're cool with due process but unreasonable searches and seizures of said evidence are ok?

I'll grant you that I am assuming that the judge has said there is not enough of a probable cause to grant a warrant. Otherwise there'd be no reason to do this...

That IS what you're saying when you say punish the individual but leave the evidence in. I remember this whole thing about illegal wiretaps recently...

If you punish the police officer for violating someone's rights, you are NOT saying that it was "OK" to do what he did. However, you are saying that the court will use the evidence at hand in an honest attempt to arrive at an accurate conclusion. Do you deny that the practice of throwing away evidence leads to inaccurate conclusions?

[haard]

Obtaining evidence unlawfully can be punished (i.e. the individual that committed the illegal act to obtain the evidence is punished) without declaring the evidence void.

I await your expert legal opinion citing various foreign constitutions, statutory law, case law, and executive regulations and comparing them to the relevant US law, and proceeding to explain how exactly the US legal system is too lenient on criminals and how protections afforded defendants should be loosened.

Are you seriously so dense that you think that this concept needs to be expressed in legalese to be valid?

If a piece of evidence is valid, any crime committed while obtaining evidence has no bearing on the validity of said evidence, 'aight?

The crime committed to obtain that evidence can be punished just like any other fucking crime, 'aight? You know, to dissuade people from doing that. Just like all the other crimes.

[Gaidin]

If you punish the police officer for violating someone's rights, you are NOT saying that it was "OK" to do what he did. However, you are saying that the court will use the evidence at hand in an honest attempt to arrive at an accurate conclusion. Do you deny that the practice of throwing away evidence leads to inaccurate conclusions?

No way in hell does throwing away evidence lead to accurate conclusions. But that isn't the entire point of the laws. The laws are there to protect the rights of the defendant as much as make sure that accurate judgements are made. Whether he did it or not is black and white until you consider his rights as someone who is presumed innocent. As he is still innocent he is still protected against unreasonable bullshit from enforcement agencies, effectively shifting the matter to grey no matter how you look at it if you consider those rights worth keeping no matter what the accused is charged of.

[haard]

Yes, because that is totally how it is in the rest of the world.
Obtaining evidence unlawfully can be punished (i.e. the individual that committed the illegal act to obtain the evidence is punished) without declaring the evidence void.

Obtaining evidence illegally pretty much violates the 4th ammendment. So we're cool with due process but unreasonable searches and seizures of said evidence are ok?

I'll grant you that I am assuming that the judge has said there is not enough of a probable cause to grant a warrant. Otherwise there'd be no reason to do this...

That IS what you're saying when you say punish the individual but leave the evidence in. I remember this whole thing about illegal wiretaps recently...

Hate to break it to you, but the 4th amendment is not some magic general principle. It's a part of your constitution.

...reading up...

Um, eh? How on earth do you read "unreasonable searches and seizures of said evidence are ok?" into what I said? It's a fucking crime and should be treated as such, obviously.

[Gaidin]

Are you seriously so dense that you think that this concept needs to be expressed in legalese to be valid?

If a piece of evidence is valid, any crime committed while obtaining evidence has no bearing on the validity of said evidence, 'aight?

The crime committed to obtain that evidence can be punished just like any other fucking crime, 'aight? You know, to dissuade people from doing that. Just like all the other crimes.

Merely punishing the officer that performed the illegal search and seizure does not protect the accused from the illegal search and seizure if said evidence is allowed in the case.

[Gaidin]

Hate to break it to you, but the 4th amendment is not some magic general principle. It's a part of your constitution.\

I figured I'd use my constitution given that this thread is about an American citizen and various random bits about said citizen, be they legal or illegal.

[haard]

Are you seriously so dense that you think that this concept needs to be expressed in legalese to be valid?

If a piece of evidence is valid, any crime committed while obtaining evidence has no bearing on the validity of said evidence, 'aight?

The crime committed to obtain that evidence can be punished just like any other fucking crime, 'aight? You know, to dissuade people from doing that. Just like all the other crimes.

Merely punishing the officer that performed the illegal search and seizure does not protect the accused from the illegal search and seizure if said evidence is allowed in the case.

Merely punishing any crime does not prevent that specific crime.
Do you believe punishing a murderer magically brings the victim to life?
Do you believe a policeman would commit a crime to get evidence if he thought he would get caught?

[haard]

Hate to break it to you, but the 4th amendment is not some magic general principle. It's a part of your constitution.\

I figured I'd use my constitution given that this thread is about an American citizen and various random bits about said citizen, be they legal or illegal.

Fair enough.

Um, split?

[Keevan_Colton]

No way in hell does throwing away evidence lead to accurate conclusions.

Good, we all agree here.

But that isn't the entire point of the laws.

Actually, it pretty much is...

The laws are there to protect the rights of the defendant as much as make sure that accurate judgements are made.

Rights, rights, rights...

Ever consider that perhaps an accurate judgement might be the goal? Punishing someone for violating rights does not mean that evidence should be excluded if it would help arrive at an accurate judgement, since there are the rights of everyone involved to a fair outcome...including society as a whole.

Whether he did it or not is black and white until you consider his rights as someone who is presumed innocent.

Actually, in logical terms, for something, it is indeed black or white, yes or no, binary, if you did something or did not do it. The task of the court is to look at the available evidence and then see which it is.

As he is still innocent he is still protected against unreasonable bullshit from enforcement agencies, effectively shifting the matter to grey no matter how you look at it if you consider those rights worth keeping no matter what the accused is charged of.

Again, you're assuming that the US system is somehow more important that accurate rulings.

[Darth Wong]

If you punish the police officer for violating someone's rights, you are NOT saying that it was "OK" to do what he did. However, you are saying that the court will use the evidence at hand in an honest attempt to arrive at an accurate conclusion. Do you deny that the practice of throwing away evidence leads to inaccurate conclusions?

No way in hell does throwing away evidence lead to accurate conclusions. But that isn't the entire point of the laws.

The point of laws is to balance the security, stability, prosperity, and liberties of the citizenry. We are arguing that this particular aspect of the laws does not help in that regard.

The laws are there to protect the rights of the defendant as much as make sure that accurate judgements are made.

And how does that aid the overall objective described above?

Whether he did it or not is black and white until you consider his rights as someone who is presumed innocent. As he is still innocent he is still protected against unreasonable bullshit from enforcement agencies, effectively shifting the matter to grey no matter how you look at it if you consider those rights worth keeping no matter what the accused is charged of.

Of course he is protected; that is why a cop who unlawfully breaks into your apartment should be charged with breaking and entering. It doesn't mean that if he breaks into your apartment and finds that you've got a dead body in your basement, the body should be ignored as evidence.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In order to do this, it'd probably be necessary to move to a more inquisitorial trial system than the adversarial system currently in place.

[Dark Hellion]

Gaidin, you seem to be missing the point. You only have to fear illegal searches if you are both doing something illegal, and if you have a legal system which is not designed for justice, but as a mechanistic system. If you shot someone and hid the gun, an illegal search still proves you shot them. Justice should be the primary concern of criminal proceedings, however in the U.S. where legalistic rules interpretation is the concern instead this does not happen. Which has been the totality of the discussion between Zod, AD, Mr. Wong, and Keevan.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Gaidin, you seem to be missing the point. You only have to fear illegal searches if you are both doing something illegal, and if you have a legal system which is not designed for justice, but as a mechanistic system. If you shot someone and hid the gun, an illegal search still proves you shot them. Justice should be the primary concern of criminal proceedings, however in the U.S. where legalistic rules interpretation is the concern instead this does not happen. Which has been the totality of the discussion between Zod, AD, Mr. Wong, and Keevan.

Indeed. in order to get a system where warrantless searches would be OK, you would need to redesign the US system at least from the ground up

[Darth Wong]

In order to do this, it'd probably be necessary to move to a more inquisitorial trial system than the adversarial system currently in place.

Why? Is there some reason why the adversarial system couldn't handle the presence of evidence that was collected improperly?

There are still valid reasons why one might dismiss evidence, ie- if it might actually produce misleading results (eg- by way of being fraudulent). But saying "my client's rights were violated, so that corpse you found in his freezer doesn't really exist" is nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

Gaidin, you seem to be missing the point. You only have to fear illegal searches if you are both doing something illegal, and if you have a legal system which is not designed for justice, but as a mechanistic system. If you shot someone and hid the gun, an illegal search still proves you shot them. Justice should be the primary concern of criminal proceedings, however in the U.S. where legalistic rules interpretation is the concern instead this does not happen. Which has been the totality of the discussion between Zod, AD, Mr. Wong, and Keevan.

Indeed. in order to get a system where warrantless searches would be OK, you would need to redesign the US system at least from the ground up

Why do you insist on describing it as approval of the offense, when all we're talking about is changing the manner in which an offense is penalized?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Gaidin, you seem to be missing the point. You only have to fear illegal searches if you are both doing something illegal, and if you have a legal system which is not designed for justice, but as a mechanistic system. If you shot someone and hid the gun, an illegal search still proves you shot them. Justice should be the primary concern of criminal proceedings, however in the U.S. where legalistic rules interpretation is the concern instead this does not happen. Which has been the totality of the discussion between Zod, AD, Mr. Wong, and Keevan.

Indeed. in order to get a system where warrantless searches would be OK, you would need to redesign the US system at least from the ground up

Why do you insist on describing it as approval of the offense, when all we're talking about is changing the manner in which an offense is penalized?

Also a part of the US system is a systemic reluctance to prosecute the police, even when they break laws.

It is all well and good to say that it could be done as an alternative to striking down the evidence, but practically given the fucked up US system, it wont happen. Shit, technically there are already laws that supposedly prohibit police from doing just that and they are never charged to my knowledge. Given that alternative and how in the reality that is my fucked up little superpower, it wont work, the only option that is in any way feasible is to keep the evidence inadmissible.

If the system were laid out differently, neither option would even be needed.

[Ted C]

Why? Is there some reason why the adversarial system couldn't handle the presence of evidence that was collected improperly?

There are still valid reasons why one might dismiss evidence, ie- if it might actually produce misleading results (eg- by way of being fraudulent). But saying "my client's rights were violated, so that corpse you found in his freezer doesn't really exist" is nonsense.

Arriving late...

The dismissal of evidence collected under dubious circumstances has always baffled me. Improper collection of it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Improper police procedure is grounds for filing charges against the officers involved or the department as a whole, not for throwing out evidence, unless the validity of the evidence is somehow placed in doubt by the collection procedure.

If someone finds a murder weapon in my car with an illegal search, the weapon was still found there. The officer who conducted the search should be charged with a crime for his actions, but the evidence he found should still exist, although the jury should certainly understand the circumstances of the collection in case there's some indication that it was planted.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Welcome to the internet, I'm here complaining about the toilet paper substitute that is your constitution. Guess what, I ain't american and I dont give a shit what your constitution says about how things should be...

If you had a greater ability at reading than a retarded four year old then you might even have noticed that I was actually complaining about the constitution and it's derived legal procedures.

DH is right that it's more a problem with the entire nature of the american legal system from the ground up in terms of structure. Winning regardless of the truth is at the heart of it, so of course cheating and "rules lawyering" to borrow from games is pervasive. Loopholes are the law of the land, which isn't how it really ought to be...but it's also what the holy an inerrant constitution says so it's beyond question. *insert angelic chorus*

Is internet tough guy the latest insult you heard? It's hardly even relevant here, I'm not talking about shit like rubbing folk down with sandpaper, dipping them in honey and feeding them to the fireants. I'm talking about the absurdity of particular aspects of the US legal system. Cruel and Unusual punishment is a whole other topic shitforbrains.

Actually, unless I'm mistaken the US constitution doesn't say anything about evidence being void just because it was obtained illegally. You're confusing decisions made by SCOTUS and other courts. The idea is that since the police violated the law to obtain this evidence then a reasonable doubt exists.

That being said I completely agree with you as long as the evidence is clear.

[General Zod]

Arriving late...

The dismissal of evidence collected under dubious circumstances has always baffled me. Improper collection of it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Improper police procedure is grounds for filing charges against the officers involved or the department as a whole, not for throwing out evidence, unless the validity of the evidence is somehow placed in doubt by the collection procedure.

If someone finds a murder weapon in my car with an illegal search, the weapon was still found there. The officer who conducted the search should be charged with a crime for his actions, but the evidence he found should still exist, although the jury should certainly understand the circumstances of the collection in case there's some indication that it was planted.

The major obvious problem I can think of is if the search was illegal, then it opens up sufficient room for doubt that the evidence may have been falsely planted there by the officer in question. They were willing to flout warrant laws, so what would stop them from planting evidence? In some cases it would be incredibly blatant (dead body in the closet), but in others it's not always so obvious. It might be stupid in some cases, but when you're dealing with, say, jury trials it could be just enough to convince the jurors to vote not guilty. The prosecution and defense aren't known for picking the smartest jury available after all.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also a part of the US system is a systemic reluctance to prosecute the police, even when they break laws.

It is all well and good to say that it could be done as an alternative to striking down the evidence, but practically given the fucked up US system, it wont happen. Shit, technically there are already laws that supposedly prohibit police from doing just that and they are never charged to my knowledge. Given that alternative and how in the reality that is my fucked up little superpower, it wont work, the only option that is in any way feasible is to keep the evidence inadmissible.

If the system were laid out differently, neither option would even be needed.

Actually, it just doesn't make the news. Plenty of officers are fired each year from law enforcement agencies where a clear violation of policy has occurred. Unless you think departments enjoy being sued?

[Gaidin]

Gaidin, you seem to be missing the point. You only have to fear illegal searches if you are both doing something illegal, and if you have a legal system which is not designed for justice, but as a mechanistic system. If you shot someone and hid the gun, an illegal search still proves you shot them. Justice should be the primary concern of criminal proceedings, however in the U.S. where legalistic rules interpretation is the concern instead this does not happen. Which has been the totality of the discussion between Zod, AD, Mr. Wong, and Keevan.

Again, speaking from the PoV of the American system here.

I haven't really attacked it from the point of view of of the plaintiff admittedly, and while I've tried to seem neutral it looks like I've severely taken the side of the defendant. I think that's really a product of the basic system design which severely favors the defendant, honestly.

The laws, at least in the basic sense of the Bill of Rights that spawn all the specific laws and legalese, are aimed at protecting the defendant. My main question is how does allowing evidence that was obtained illegally to be admitted protect the defendant(no matter what punishment you throw on the officer)?

[Dark Hellion]

The whole point is that protecting the defendant may not be the proper idea. Protecting the innocent is the purpose of justice, protecting the defendant is simply a legalistic shortcut, that while making sense 200 years ago, is increasingly behind the times in the years of DNA, thermal cameras that can see through walls, chemical detection and other advances. Such advances have made the evidentiary laws protection become very skewed.

[Joe Momma]

In order to do this, it'd probably be necessary to move to a more inquisitorial trial system than the adversarial system currently in place.

Why? Is there some reason why the adversarial system couldn't handle the presence of evidence that was collected improperly?

Not really AFAICT. The US system already has that to some extent in exceptions to the exclusionary rule -- good-faith exceptions, inevitable discovery, etc.

Admissibility of evidence is frequently argued in pre-trial motions anyway, so adding an additional motion to assess illegally-gathered evidence would be simple enough. This could include questions of whether the evidence was tainted by the manner in which it was collected (which again, is something courts often find themselves considering even with legally collected evidence, so it's not a huge stretch) and even whether the violation in evidence gathering was so hideously egregious that as a matter of ethics the illegal evidence should be excluded.

Also, I think bringing criminal charges against those who deliberately use illegal means to gather evidence would have a stronger deterrent and normative effect than the exclusionary rule (though the two are not exclusive). Criminal charges would make those considering such ends less likely to do so and hopefully bolster a greater collective sense of responsibility for any officer placed in the position of gathering evidence.