From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 01:50:18 MDT
Hal Finney wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
> The problem with this proposal is that it removes the institutional
> incentives to observe the law. If a criminal is caught and convicted as
> a result of illegally gathered evidence, it is unlikely that society will
> turn against the police agencies that made a mistake. People will tend to
> look the other way, to ignore or forgive the problem. Few juries would
> convict a policeman who overstepped the bounds of his search warrant,
> if it helped him convict a violent criminal.
>
Either you live in a society that protects you from arbitrary
search and seizure and other illegal means or you don't. The
few violent criminals (and many non-violent ones a lot of which
are not rationally designatable as criminals) who are caught by
such means are victims of an abrogation of the very rights we in
the US are supposed to protect. Their victimization victimizes
us all. We don't gain in security and certainly not freedom
thereby.
> In contrast, under the present system, illegally gathered evidence cannot
> be used. In many cases this will make the difference between success
> and failure in prosecution. People will be furious with police agencies
> who make this kind of mistake! The D.A. will be voted out of office,
> the police chief fired.
>
Ease of prosecution is NOT the primary goal of the legal system
or of the political system of which it is a part. I will not
live in or support a country that does not understand that.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:24 MST