Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To my thinking, the overall aim of the criminal justice system should be to discover the truth. There should be rules to protect people's rights, and punishment for police or other officials who break those rules when obtaining evidence, but should that evidence be thrown out because it was obtained properly. Shouldn't the truth be more important than that? Should due process be allowed to cause an injustice to occur?
Unfortunately, truth is not the goal of the criminal justice system. It is about who can create enough doubt or present enough evidence to win an argument. And then cut deals (often knowing the defendant is guilty) based upon the levels/ degree of evidence they are allowed to present based upon due process of investigation / discovery.
Do injustices occur because of due process? Yes. Is due process (as codified) necessary to protect the accused as an individual of whatever criminal code crime they are charged by the "state" - Yes.
The classic image of Justice being blind and holding a balance is apt. Although sometimes it seems deaf and dumb too. This is why certain terms such as preponderance of evidence come into play. A case may not have every piece of evidence captured, yet a thorough investigation will hypothetically enable getting as much of 'truth' as possible. Unfortunately, that usually requires more manpower and man hours than most systems can support for each and every case.
The bigger injustice is how the system can apply itself however it wants based on public perception, sentiment and media coverage and narratives, which often are not concerned with the truth either, but rather selling something (position / career / perception / image) to increase rating$ / click$ / reinforce prevailing narratives desired by those at uppermost levels of the control mechanism(s) of our society. This is why we need much more protections for whistleblowers i.e. those within any system (judicial / corporate / government etc) being investigated to be able to bring forth evidence.
On the other hand, instant justice, such as criminals being killed in act of crime does save everyone time and money and in some cases is a public service. I think of that funny line from Fred Thompson as the D.A. in an old Law and Order episode when he asks "did the criminal deserve it?".
For heinous crimes I would have no problem sending them immediately to heavenly judgment, or whatever one would like to consider it. These heinous grotesque murder crimes where the criminal is being fed, clothed etc for years are a waste. I'd rather all that money go toward early childhood development programs to hopefully deal with the social problem on the front end and to victims (families) overcoming the trauma they have endured, rather than the prison industrial complex.
For me the answer to the OP's question is really a two-parter.
If the police (or whoever) actively attempts to obtain evidence illegally, they're breaking the law and should be charged, tried, and convicted with a hefty sentence...because their very duty is to uphold the laws, and not just the laws they like.
On the other hand, evidence is evidence, and if it works toward proving a crime has been committed, then the evidence should be presented.
The purpose of a civil law court (inquisitorial) is to find the truth. The purpose of a common law court (adversarial) is to see which side of the story is more plausible.
Inquisitorial systems have their own problems, like adversarial systems have their own problems. In an adversarial system, the prosecution is incentivized to get a conviction regardless of the facts. In an inquisitorial system, the defense may not be vigorous if the facts do not favor the defendent.
Pick your poison, although maybe another system is possible.
To my thinking, the overall aim of the criminal justice system should be to discover the truth. There should be rules to protect people's rights, and punishment for police or other officials who break those rules when obtaining evidence, but should that evidence be thrown out because it was obtained properly. Shouldn't the truth be more important than that? Should due process be allowed to cause an injustice to occur?
Are you referring to violations of the 4th and/or 5th amendment? No, the Constitution needs to be upheld. Truth is good, but it needs to be discovered legally. Once a government is permitted to go rogue there's no turning back.
If someone is convicted on the basis of unlawfully obtained evidence, are they really going to be in a position to force a prosecution of the officers or agents that broke the law to obtain the evidence? I doubt it.
To my thinking, the overall aim of the criminal justice system should be to discover the truth. There should be rules to protect people's rights, and punishment for police or other officials who break those rules when obtaining evidence, but should that evidence be thrown out because it was obtained properly. Shouldn't the truth be more important than that? Should due process be allowed to cause an injustice to occur?
If unlawfully obtained evidence is admissible in court, then the Fourth Amendment's protections are neutered. It sounds like you're someone who really thinks that whole Bill of Rights thing is just way too much.
"There should be rules"
But if those rules are violated, no big deal. Apparently.
"There should be punishment for police"
LOL. Funny!
What you are essentially arguing is that the state needs more power, and the people need less power. So the police can kick down your door without your consent, rifle through you possessions, and use whatever they find against you. They can use it in court, or merely to put them on the right track for an investigation against you. Hell, they can just use it to harass you. They can show whatever books you own, whatever papers you have, whatever files are in your cache, to your neighbors, to your parents, to you wife/girlfriend, to your employer. You waltz home from work and, viola, your door's on its hingers. Again! Your room's tossed. The intimate details of your life are no longer secret.
But it's all right! The police would never do that to you! Because you're innocent. The police only harass people who deserve it. Right?
Anyway, they'll be severely punished! Just like they're punished now?
Sheesh...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
