Debate: Illegally obtained evidence

Ricochet J · 13 May 2012 at 01:29

This is a curious case.

Let's say there was a video showing a murder as clear as day. You can clearly see the defendant committing the murder, how it was done, where it was done, and who was murdered. No one knows about this video and it's locked away in a safe.

Now let's say someone, somehow broke into the safe and obtained the video and presented it to the judge clearly showing the defendant did commit the murder.

My question is do you think:
- The judge should dismiss the evidence based on the fact that it was illegally obtained, despite the video actually showing the murder.
- The judge should accept the video, however knowing a law was broken to obtain it, and possibly prosecuting the person who presented this illegal evidence?

I think the judge should accept the evidence, and possibly prosecute the person who broke the law to obtain it. However UK law strictly forbids illegally obtained evidence from being used against the defendant.

I remember this was debated in my 6th form's debating society and caused quite a stir. The room was divided. People who studied A Level politics and law sided with the evidence not being allowed to be used. Others sided with it being allowed.

What do you think?

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 01:33

Dismiss the evidence - it's the only way. It's like negotiating with terrorists, it might sort that one case out, but it's going to cause a massive amount of trouble.

It's crystal clear.

Kamwah · 13 May 2012 at 01:43

It shouldn't be dismissed as evidence if it blatantly shows the truth.

Theft/Breaking and entering is dismissible, you're not hurting anyone IMO.

Murder? I wouldn't dismiss the evidence but that person would be going to jail also.

Torture? Dismiss it as you can never be sure about whether it's the truth or not.

I don't see a problem as long as someone isn't harmed.

DAnDan · 13 May 2012 at 01:44

If the evidence makes a difference, it should be used. However, the person who obtained it should be punished as fitting for the crime they committed to get it.

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 01:44

If you can't see a problem then you haven't given it any thought at all. What happens when you use illegally obtained evidence once? You get a hell of a lot more of it.

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 01:45

DAnDan said:
If the evidence makes a difference, it should be used. However, the person who obtained it should be punished as fitting for the crime they committed to get it.

You think it'd ever be given unless it was anonymous?

Kamwah · 13 May 2012 at 01:48

The Halk said:
If you can't see a problem then you haven't given it any thought at all. What happens when you use illegally obtained evidence once? You get a hell of a lot more of it.

Don't start an argument by insulting me just because my opinion differs from your own. I have given it enough thought.

Everyone should be accountable for their actions in a court of law. If evidence is obtained due to breaking the law then they should also be held accountable.

DAnDan · 13 May 2012 at 01:48

The Halk said:
You think it'd ever be given unless it was anonymous?

Fair point.

It just seems silly to me that justice could be lost due to how evidence is obtained.

PermaBanned · 13 May 2012 at 01:50

The Halk said:
You think it'd ever be given unless it was anonymous?

But if you don't know the source it can't ever be considered reliable.

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 01:51

Kamwah said:
Don't start an argument by insulting me just because my opinion differs from your own. I have given it enough thought.

Everyone should be accountable for their actions in a court of law. If evidence is obtained due to breaking the law then they should also be held accountable.

I didn't insult you - I said you hadn't given it enough thought.

The evidence would be given anonymously each time. You'd very quickly have a position where the law was broken in order to keep the law going. You'd literally encourage it.

It's exactly the same as paying the ransom for a hostage. Do it once and you save that particular life, but next week there's 3 more gangs doing it.

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 01:52

PermaBanned said:
But if you don't know the source it can't ever be considered reliable.

It depends on what the evidence is. Video camera footage, pictures etc... bank statements.

Kamwah · 13 May 2012 at 01:53

The Halk said:
I didn't insult you - I said you hadn't given it enough thought.

The evidence would be given anonymously each time. You'd very quickly have a position where the law was broken in order to keep the law going. You'd literally encourage it.

It's exactly the same as paying the ransom for a hostage. Do it once and you save that particular life, but next week there's 3 more gangs doing it.

Fine, let's let them get killed

It's fine to sit here and say No but as soon as it was you or one of your loved ones you'd want everything possible done to save them.

Tefal · 13 May 2012 at 01:54

so would this justify unwarranted wire taps, hidden cameras and illegal searches of property and mail by the police in efforts to obtain evidence?

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 01:56

Kamwah said:
Fine, let's let them get killed

It's fine to sit here and say No but as soon as it was you or one of your loved ones you'd want everything possible done to save them.

And as soon as it was a loved one I'd have absolutely no say in what happened.

In fact that's a good way of helping my argument. If illegally obtained evidence was allowed in court and your wife had been murdered and you knew who did it - would you break in to their house to see if you could find something to prove it? You might not do it, but I'm sure you can appreciate other people might.

Castiel · 13 May 2012 at 01:57

If you allow illegally obtained evidence to hold veracity in a court of law then you invite the practice of obtain evidence without due regard for the law.......

There is good reason why illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible, to accept evidence regardless of how it is obtained would effectively condone the practices used to obtain it...be it by not obtaining a valid warrant to torturing a suspect........

Kamwah · 13 May 2012 at 02:04

The Halk said:
And as soon as it was a loved one I'd have absolutely no say in what happened.

In fact that's a good way of helping my argument. If illegally obtained evidence was allowed in court and your wife had been murdered and you knew who did it - would you break in to their house to see if you could find something to prove it? You might not do it, but I'm sure you can appreciate other people might.

I would if it was absolutely certain but then again I'd probably get killed too XD

It's the Batman scenario IMO. On one side you've got results but on the other hand you've got even more laws being broken to get these results.

I'd still lean on the side of that illegally obtained evidence is fine depending on the circumstances but that's just because this world is so full of murder,rape,assault,drugs etc etc.. the law just doesn't work out a lot of the time.

PermaBanned · 13 May 2012 at 02:05

The Halk said:
It depends on what the evidence is. Video camera footage, pictures etc... bank statements.

Which can all be faked.

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 02:07

PermaBanned said:
Which can all be faked.

OK, so then it's not done anonymously. Whoever obtained the evidence illegally has an ulterior motive - why would you accept their evidence when you wouldn't accept anonymous?

v0n · 13 May 2012 at 02:09

If there is a video, recording, email, smoking gun obtained without warrant or hacked, stolen etc etc, and it still proves the crime, in the end, it's still a proof of a crime, and that trumps all. If a tape shows it, if an email chain prove it, that's that - after all - it did happen. No ifs, no buts. It doesn't matter where the evidence comes from or how it was obtained.

I hostly think half a century from now lawyers will tell "illegally obtained evidence" stories to each other as a trip-over-own-feet/forgot-its-own-purpose dumb XX century broken law jokes.

Tefal · 13 May 2012 at 02:12

v0n said:
If there is a video, recording, email, smoking gun obtained without warrant or hacked, stolen etc etc, and it still proves the crime, in the end, it's still a proof of a crime, and that trumps all. If a tape shows it, if an email chain prove it, that's that - after all - it did happen. No ifs, no buts. It doesn't matter where the evidence comes from or how it was obtained.

I hostly think half a century from now lawyers will tell "illegally obtained evidence" stories to each other as a trip-over-own-feet/forgot-its-own-purpose dumb XX century broken law jokes.

So why have all this nonsense with warrants etc?

**** it just let the police stop and search anyone anywhere, go into anyone's house and search their poses ions computers PDAs/phones, tap their phones and monitor their computers at will.