Debate: Illegally obtained evidence
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
because it would be trivial for a person involved in the case to hire someone uninvolved in the case to "find" this evidence?
That would make the person who steals the evidence to be connected to the trial/investigation!
I'm only up this late as I'm writing an essay on this subject right now. In my research I came across this and I thinks its appropriate to this discussion:
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/admissible-criminal-evidence.php
Of course, the common sense dictates that if at the end, the evidence actually did prove you killed the person or stole the goods, it would be a bit of a moot point, wouldn't it?
But of course I do see your point. It would completely get out of hand and become soviet russia style abuse.
Oh, the delicate line between ending the farce of current legal system and creation of face punching, balls gripping police state....
Because how the evidence was obtained and the correct procedures and a verifiable documented trail of evidence all relate directly to the authenticity of that evidence.
As Evidence forms the very basis of any Court, the admissibility and legally of that evidence is paramount....if we begin to consider blatantly illegally obtained evidence then we undermine the very basis of our justice system.
In any case, a Trial Judge will consider the admissibility of any evidence anyway.
Then you create a situation whereby not only is the evidence tainted, but the person who acquired it is also unreliable....who is to say that the evidence is even real if you cannot verify the reliability of the source?
Where do you stop with what evidence is admissible or not....do we seriously allow the evidence while condemning the practices that obtained it, are we not effectively condoning and accepting those practices by ccepting the evidence obtained by them?
This is a slippery slope to authoritarianism and conviction by any means necessary......it undermines the very basis of our justice system.
Depending on the evidence it can be verified to confirm authenticity. Your stance is fine if we consider evidence that helps the prosecution case but what if it proves the defendant is not guilty. Would you allow an innocent person go to jail because the evidence was stolen at some point?
I agree.
Obviously as others have said it makes sense that only legally obtained evidence can be used, as it prevents abuse.
However, it is possible to create outlandish scenarios that make a mockery of justice, like a serial killer who has tortured 10 children to death and the only evidence is a film he made of himself doing it (1080p HD
), and the video gets ruled inadmissible, what would they do? They couldn't let the guy go because the public outcry would be beyond belief.
However, it is possible to create outlandish scenarios that make a mockery of justice, like a serial killer who has tortured 10 children to death and the only evidence is a film he made of himself doing it (1080p HD
), and the video gets ruled inadmissible, what would they do? They couldn't let the guy go because the public outcry would be beyond belief.
The second point about prosecuting the person who obtained the evidence illegally (even if it were used in court), wouldn't such a point be considered by the CPS? They consider if it's in the public interest to do so.
An example I heard from someone at a talk (I forget if they worked for the CPS, or were police, something of that nature) says someone can break the law but it may not always be in the public interest to prosecute. The exact example they gave was an old poor lady stealing cat food for her pets (lol). Yes she's broken the law by stealing but it may not be 'in the public interest' to do.
I would think, back to the topic on hand, it would have to be considered if it's in the public interest and the manner in which they obtained this illegal evidence.
An example I heard from someone at a talk (I forget if they worked for the CPS, or were police, something of that nature) says someone can break the law but it may not always be in the public interest to prosecute. The exact example they gave was an old poor lady stealing cat food for her pets (lol). Yes she's broken the law by stealing but it may not be 'in the public interest' to do.
I would think, back to the topic on hand, it would have to be considered if it's in the public interest and the manner in which they obtained this illegal evidence.
If you're saying it's ever in the public interest for someone to illegally obtain evidence, and that evidence to then be used in court.... that's an even more slippery slope.
So not only do you encourage people to break the law, you don't even prosecute because it was for a trial... no thanks!
I am not on about the first point, should we use it in court, I was commenting only on the second point should the person be prosecuted.
I am not saying we should encourage illegal evidence. It just made me think of something I heard at a talk a few years ago and the idea of 'public interest' could be of relevance here.
I certainly agree, it's a slippery slope.
I think we have to accept that there's so overwhelmingly much public interest in the evidence being inadmissible because of the impact from that point onwards that we should never accept it.
I think it's just like the hostage/ransom situation. If you imagine Somalian pirates capturing a British yacht, and a 3mil ransom being paid you're going to have a lot more Somalian fishermen grabbing Ak47s and going hunting for tourists.
I think it's just like the hostage/ransom situation. If you imagine Somalian pirates capturing a British yacht, and a 3mil ransom being paid you're going to have a lot more Somalian fishermen grabbing Ak47s and going hunting for tourists.
No single piece of evidence should be able to convict or acquit a defendant. If we begin a precedent of allowing illegal evidence to be admissible then we create the situation whereby it will become increasingly difficult to ascertain the authenticity of such evidence, or the reliability of either the source or the evidence itself....not to mention the legal rights of both the defendant or plaintiff being undermined.
If a prosecution is able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty then it is unlikely a single piece of evidence will overturn that, and if there is one piece of evidence such as a text message illegally pulled from a phone or a piece of video illegally obtained from a CCTV that proves the innocence or guilt of the defendant, then there would also be evidence related to that which can be obtained legally........again, Evidence is the basis of pur justice system, you undermine that, you undermine it all.
Last edited:
I think it boils down to vigilantes going off to find evidence.
The police will attempt to do their job and through all legal avenues.
So maybe it should be left to the police rather than individuals trying to get evidence.
I see both sides to the argument and it's certainly a tricky area.
The police will attempt to do their job and through all legal avenues.
So maybe it should be left to the police rather than individuals trying to get evidence.
I see both sides to the argument and it's certainly a tricky area.
It certainly is a tricky area, which is why evidence should be totally above reproach when used to justify a legal position of innocence or guilt.
The precedent has already been set and as I posted earlier most judges will allow stolen evidence to be presented in a court:
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/admissible-criminal-evidence.php
Which is why I stated earlier that a trial judge has discretion.....that doesn't mean that a precedent has been set however, only that the discretion of the court remains.
No it doesn't, that's US law. In the UK the judge decides what is allowed, subject to input (but not over-riding) by the barristers for both sides. It is entirely possible for the judge to allow illegally-obtained evidence, but he/she would almost certainly make sure that the jury were informed as to how the evidence was obtained. The Defence would almost certainly do the same anyway. The UK rules are far less drastic than the US ones. It appears, as is sually the case, the most people here know far more about US law than UK. Gotta love TV.
M
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It seems then that A Level politics and law either doesn't cover the admissability of evidence in any great depth (which is fair enough) or they've not been paying attention. It's not an absolute rule that "tainted" evidence is always inadmissable - it's the norm that this evidence would be ruled out as on the grounds of how it was obtained especially if it could have been obtained fairly and wasn't but like a lot in our legal system there are caveats and exemptions. A basic point to consider is whether it furthers the ends of justice more to include the evidence and whether that would outweigh the prejudicial effects of including it - usually less weight will be attached to evidence obtained illegally but to say it can never be included suggests a lack of appreciation of what the law actually is in this area.
See the link by shine and the post by Meridian above for further explanation.