If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Evidence obtained illegally.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I've just heard a report on the news about Michael Jackson's trial. His lawyers are going to argue the fact that the evidence was gained illegally and therefore invalidates it.
(i'll try to get some specific examples later)
should courts allow evidence that has been obtained through illegal methods? and i don't mean evidence that has been gained through entrapment, but for example without a search warrant?
isn't evidence still evidence?
why should some evidence be allowed and others not? (talking now about all types, not jus that gained illegally) Surely some crucial piece of evidence could be disallowed?
(i'll try to get some specific examples later)
should courts allow evidence that has been obtained through illegal methods? and i don't mean evidence that has been gained through entrapment, but for example without a search warrant?
isn't evidence still evidence?
why should some evidence be allowed and others not? (talking now about all types, not jus that gained illegally) Surely some crucial piece of evidence could be disallowed?
0
Comments
But then if there weren't rules anything could be admitted, and we can't have that.
Because it gives the police an incentive to forget about playing by the rules.
No. If its wrong for the accused to break the law, why is it right for the prosecution to do it?
what if methods of repercussion were introduced for evidence obtained illegally?
Well then don't use illegal evidence.
Not sure what you mean here.
it'd be better if i have some examples, but as of yet i'm stuck.
and by repurcussions i mean fines etc for using illegal methods as opposed to legal ones.
The police look after their own.
It's legal technicality that might sound daft to you, but is necessary for the justice system to operate fairly.
Opening a whole can of worms there.
it's a thread that was liable to do so.
What would happen in the subsequent trial? Could convictions resting on the evidence be quashed? Or would there simply be punishment for obtaining the evidence?
Currently yes, but in future, if illegal evidence were to become admissable what then?
Well, there was another thread on the possibilities of convictions resting on torture confessions. That's illegal evidence. So where does it stop?
Ahh, but supposing a tip-off about a bomb in central london was obtained through torture, are we to ignore it on moral grounds?
But imagine this: Someone has killed many people and will probably kill more. However he has covered his tracks well enough so that the only incriminating evidence found was obtained illegally. If you refuse this evidence, you let him go free and kill more people. You seriously think that is the right thing to do??
Search for the bomb and evacuate of neccesary. But using evidence gained by torture to prosecute someone is wrong. It will only lead to torture being used more routinely.
Difficult one. But if you sanction the use of torture (which is what allowing evidence gained by torture is effectively doing), where does that leave us?
Why didn't they obtain a warrant?
The police should always always obey the law and if they dont then they should be punished harder than others. We pay them to uphold the law!
I think I may agree with that concept. The police, more than anyone else, should be most accountable to the law on the basis that they are supposed to uphold and emulate it.
It does raise a huge moral dilemma.
The police shouldn't routinely gather evidence illegally. I think everything has a procedure and it should be followed without question.
However I also think it is highly imorral that someone accused as something as disgusting as what jackson is being accused of has to resort to technicalities in order to get the case dropped.
An innocent person would refute whatever evidence the police put forward instead of resorting to tactics like this.
I think a middle ground should be followed. The officers who didn't follow procedure should be punished, pay docked, that sort of thing.
However evidence is still evidence and should be submitted to the court.
n.b.Im not condoning the police actions, they should have obtained a legal warrant to search but that shouldn't affect the evidence that was gathered.
It should never ever be used because that way the police know they are wasting their time unless they follow the law.
Define 'use the result' prosectute in court on the evidence? Or respond to a bomb threat?