From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 01:43:12 MDT
The trouble with this is you potentially throwout freedom from
arbitrary search and seizure and security in one's persons and
effects if you aren't careful. Much illegal evidence is illegal
precisely because it is a threat to this freedom. I don't think
catch and prosecuting more crimes is worth that for a minute.
It is even less worth it considering the very questionable and
huge assortment of things that are now called 'crimes'.
- samantha
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky 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.
>
> -- -- -- -- --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:24 MST