Constitutional Question

  • 65 Replies
  • 3263 Views
?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2010, 04:46:24 PM »
I dunno; I can't remember.

Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2010, 05:39:44 AM »
So now what? Do we temporary hire people to break laws to gather evidence on suspected criminals, and then punish them less severely because of their crime?  Your idea is not good. you don't give people incentive to break laws. Its just silly.

You're getting yourself confused. I'm not suggesting any of what you just said. I'm simply saying that breaking of rules should be delt with as deemed appropriate when it happens. And this shouldn't impact evidence, because it makes no sense to disregard something when it's become common fact by being exposed.


*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2010, 06:31:15 AM »
There was a British case where a man raped an old woman, and due to DNA samples that the Police already had, they could say with 99.999992% certainty that he was the perpetrator. However, the samples should have been destroyed after a year, and so he was released, even though the evidence was obtained legally.
That is retarded.


Although, if it's ok to break the rules, as would be shown if this man was prosecuted, wouldn't it mean the police would start keeping all data, even when it's illegal to do so?
Why is it illegal to keep the data?
So now what? Do we temporary hire people to break laws to gather evidence on suspected criminals, and then punish them less severely because of their crime?  Your idea is not good. you don't give people incentive to break laws. Its just silly.

You're getting yourself confused. I'm not suggesting any of what you just said. I'm simply saying that breaking of rules should be delt with as deemed appropriate when it happens. And this shouldn't impact evidence, because it makes no sense to disregard something when it's become common fact by being exposed.


You ARE suggesting what i said by encouraging the law breaking. You shouldnt get rewarded for breaking the law. It will lead to horrid abuse.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2010, 06:32:31 AM »
There was a British case where a man raped an old woman, and due to DNA samples that the Police already had, they could say with 99.999992% certainty that he was the perpetrator. However, the samples should have been destroyed after a year, and so he was released, even though the evidence was obtained legally.
That is retarded.


Although, if it's ok to break the rules, as would be shown if this man was prosecuted, wouldn't it mean the police would start keeping all data, even when it's illegal to do so?
Why is it illegal to keep the data?

No idea.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2010, 09:29:27 AM »
There was a British case where a man raped an old woman, and due to DNA samples that the Police already had, they could say with 99.999992% certainty that he was the perpetrator. However, the samples should have been destroyed after a year, and so he was released, even though the evidence was obtained legally.
That is retarded.


Although, if it's ok to break the rules, as would be shown if this man was prosecuted, wouldn't it mean the police would start keeping all data, even when it's illegal to do so?

Exactly, there is no excuse for police keeping a permanant record of innocent (in the eyes of the law the man was until proven guilty) people's DNA information, in Britain we need every help against state encroachment as we can get.

I don't understand why they couldn't just get him to take another test, though...

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2010, 11:02:41 AM »
There was a British case where a man raped an old woman, and due to DNA samples that the Police already had, they could say with 99.999992% certainty that he was the perpetrator. However, the samples should have been destroyed after a year, and so he was released, even though the evidence was obtained legally.
That is retarded.


Although, if it's ok to break the rules, as would be shown if this man was prosecuted, wouldn't it mean the police would start keeping all data, even when it's illegal to do so?

Exactly, there is no excuse for police keeping a permanant record of innocent (in the eyes of the law the man was until proven guilty) people's DNA information, in Britain we need every help against state encroachment as we can get.

I don't understand why they couldn't just get him to take another test, though...
Well... i understand if the statute of limitations on prosecuting the case had expired, but for an ongoing investigation where he was a suspect? I have to keep law enforcement some kind of leeway on that.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2010, 11:14:45 AM »
If there is other evidence against that man, such as the woman pointing him out in a lineup, there should be no problem obtaining a warrant for taking DNA from the man.

Circumstantial evidence or eyewitness evidence in my opinion is not strong enough to convict, it has been shown to be down right wrong too many times.  However I am perfectly fine with using such evidence to obtain a warrant to search for physical evidence.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2010, 11:37:49 AM »
'A few months later, he was acquitted of this burglary and as the law then stated that the Forensic Science Service could retain only the DNA of people convicted of a recordable offence, it should have been destroyed.'

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202656/This-sociopath-cleared-rape--Now-years-later-legal-breakthrough-dock--Theres-just-scarely-believable-problem-.html#ixzz0xYA1pLuw

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35367
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2010, 11:52:08 AM »
SpeakerOfTruth, the problem I have with your position is that the only way to properly deter the gathering of illegal evidence is to not allow it at trial.  There will be some cops who would be willing to face the consequences to themselves if they could deliver evidence on some people.  By permitting illegal evidence to be used, the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule is severely compromised.

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2010, 12:07:01 PM »
'A few months later, he was acquitted of this burglary and as the law then stated that the Forensic Science Service could retain only the DNA of people convicted of a recordable offence, it should have been destroyed.'

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202656/This-sociopath-cleared-rape--Now-years-later-legal-breakthrough-dock--Theres-just-scarely-believable-problem-.html#ixzz0xYA1pLuw
Ok. I don't disagree with that at all. It sucks he was cleared, but the evidence was illegally obtained.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2010, 11:01:12 AM »
No it wasn't. It was illegally retained.

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2010, 11:45:44 AM »
Shut up Nazi youth. It was illegally obtained because it was illegally retained.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2010, 11:45:59 AM »
Wat

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2010, 11:52:07 AM »
I am going to punch you in the face until i illegally retain your teeth in my fist.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2010, 11:53:29 AM »
You're going to illegally obtain downtown.

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2010, 11:55:35 AM »
I love you. Lets never fight again. Obtain, retain, no pain no gain.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2010, 11:58:31 AM »
Let us refrain.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35367
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2010, 06:37:56 PM »
And this thread disintegrates into nonsense.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35367
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2010, 03:43:09 PM »
I know that this is an old thread, but recently in one of my classes, the professor (of law, obviously) explained the law regarding a situation like this one.  As it turns out, Wakka Wakka was right.  Because it was Space Cowgirl's rights being violated, not mine, I do not have the legal standing to challenge this search.  Now, if it were Space Cowgirl on trial for something, for example, if she deliberately hid the murder weapon for me, then the evidence would be suppressed.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2010, 08:50:26 PM »
Couldn't be bothered to read the thread, but the police can get a warrant to search any house for a case. It's irrelevant who it belongs to if it's pertinent to a case.

I should add that warrants are considered constitutional.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 08:57:33 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35367
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #50 on: November 25, 2010, 11:24:04 PM »
Couldn't be bothered to read the thread, but the police can get a warrant to search any house for a case. It's irrelevant who it belongs to if it's pertinent to a case.

I should add that warrants are considered constitutional.

I don't think anyone's disputing that.  This thread is about whether or not illegally-gathered evidence can be used against someone else.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 43576
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #51 on: November 26, 2010, 06:38:00 AM »
Yeah, it doesn't seem like you could be bothered to even read the first post.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35367
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #52 on: November 26, 2010, 08:37:58 AM »
Yeah, it doesn't seem like you could be bothered to even read the first post.

As rude as it sounds, this is true.

Anyway, we're missing the point here.  It turns out that you were all wrong.  Franklin, Fortuna, Trekky, and Space Cowgirl, were all wrong, wrong, wrong.  How does this make you feel, FES?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 43576
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #53 on: November 26, 2010, 11:13:05 AM »
It makes me feel like stabbing an evil dictator. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #54 on: November 26, 2010, 11:25:38 AM »
I read most of the first page, but it seems I misunderstood the intent of the question, which led me to think that the attention to the illegality of trespassing was a tangent line of thought.

I don't think anyone's disputing that.  This thread is about whether or not illegally-gathered evidence can be used against someone else.

If this is the question, it already inherently answered. Maybe that's why I discounted it, while crediting the second post.
However, I think the more debatable question seems to be, "should it be legal?".

To the point:
If we say illegal searches should be legalized, we grant police officers the right to trespass, the opportunity to plant evidence, and ultimately the ability to incriminate/suppress any citizens they chose. Police should not have the ability to exercise uncontrolled powers over average citizens. I'm with Trekky, the current system of evidence is a controlled process that protect its citizens from an oppressive government. If illegal searches let the bad guys get away, don't do them illegally.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2010, 11:37:18 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35367
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #55 on: November 26, 2010, 03:07:58 PM »
I read most of the first page, but it seems I misunderstood the intent of the question, which led me to think that the attention to the illegality of trespassing was a tangent line of thought.

I don't think anyone's disputing that.  This thread is about whether or not illegally-gathered evidence can be used against someone else.

If this is the question, it already inherently answered. Maybe that's why I discounted it, while crediting the second post.
However, I think the more debatable question seems to be, "should it be legal?".

To the point:
If we say illegal searches should be legalized, we grant police officers the right to trespass, the opportunity to plant evidence, and ultimately the ability to incriminate/suppress any citizens they chose. Police should not have the ability to exercise uncontrolled powers over average citizens. I'm with Trekky, the current system of evidence is a controlled process that protect its citizens from an oppressive government. If illegal searches let the bad guys get away, don't do them illegally.

Well, no one's disputing that, either.  After all, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures is outlined pretty clearly in the Fourth Amendment.  This discussion is about the exclusionary rule, which is not actually mentioned in the Constitution.  It is simply a rule that courts have made to respond to violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Also, that question is not actually inherently answered.  That's exactly why I bumped this thread: To point out that virtually everyone who replied here, saying that the evidence would be suppressed, is dead wrong.  The evidence would be allowed in court if it was being used against me, because my rights were not violated with the illegal search.  Contrary to popular opinion, the exclusionary rule is not there to punish cops who break the rules.  If it was, then a more appropriate punishment would be to prosecute them for trespass or burglary (as SCG suggested earlier) rather than simply letting the criminal go, wouldn't it?  The point of the exclusionary rule is to protect the people's rights.  My rights would not be protected by suppressing the illegal evidence.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 04:02:10 PM by Saddam Hussein »

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #56 on: November 26, 2010, 03:54:08 PM »
Well, no one's disputing that, either.  After all, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures is outlined pretty clearly in the Fourth Amendment.  This discussion is about the exclusionary rule, which is not actually mentioned in the Constitution.
Then why would the OP question its constitutionality?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 43576
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #57 on: November 26, 2010, 04:17:37 PM »
The OP didn't question the constitutionality of unreasonable searches and seizures. Read the post again.  The question was whether the courts could use the evidence found in my house (it was an illegal search) against Saddam. 

I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #58 on: November 26, 2010, 04:34:22 PM »
Blah...blah...fruit of poisoned tree...blah...blah.

Wong Sun v. United States

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 43576
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Constitutional Question
« Reply #59 on: November 26, 2010, 04:40:41 PM »
Mrs Peach just proved Saddam's professor wrong! How does that make you feel, Saddam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.