From: David Lubkin (extropy@unreasonable.com)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 19:49:45 MDT
At 03:45 PM 4/10/2002 -0400, Eliezer wrote:
>Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> >
> > I know of no such immunity for press. If there is such an immunity, it
> > should be abolished. Another faulty feedback mechanism that I advocate
> > abolishing is the idea that evidence gathered illegally has to be thrown
> > out of court. I say, go ahead and use the evidence to prosecute the
> > criminal, and then also prosecute the person who illegally gathered the
> > evidence. One crime shouldn't absolve another crime.
>
>That's an excellent idea - but there would have to be some mechanism making
>sure that the people who illegally gathered the evidence were really
>convicted. For example, a law stating that when evidence has been shown to
>be contaminated under a low standard of proof, then that evidence cannot be
>used in court unless the person who gathered it is actually *convicted*,
>*sentenced*, and *actually punished* under whatever higher standard of proof
>is required for conviction.
Nice refinement.
We also need to distinguish between categories of evidence that is
currently inadmissible.
In our new world, if Dirty Harry searches a perp without probable cause and
finds the murder weapon, the weapon is admissible, and Harry is
punished. But if Harry dangles a perp over the side of a building and he
confesses, the confession is not admissible.
-- David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:23 MST