Constitutional Legal Principles vs. The Effectiveness of Police Forces
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
It's tricky(to rock a rhyme)...
Tricky. I don't know much about the law, mainly because the most I've ever had to worry about was having pot on my person. But. I think the laws of evidence gathering should really be amended. In fact, the whole concept of LAW itself should be revised. I understand that it's never been perfect, and never will be, but I'm fucking sick and tired of sick bastards getting off on shit like this. People, who by all accounts are guily, getting off on technicality. Mistakes will be made. Should such a dire consequence be the price paid? Certainly not. It only encourages more distrust and dislike of the legal system and lawyers. Damned defense attornys. Maybe the way these officers went about it was incorrect, but dammit, a little girl was killed. It's not like it was a case of shoplifting or something. We afford criminals too many rights, in effect stripping the victims and victims families of theirs. I can't tell in words how much that just outrages me...I need to think about this some more, then post again...
Tricky. I don't know much about the law, mainly because the most I've ever had to worry about was having pot on my person. But. I think the laws of evidence gathering should really be amended. In fact, the whole concept of LAW itself should be revised. I understand that it's never been perfect, and never will be, but I'm fucking sick and tired of sick bastards getting off on shit like this. People, who by all accounts are guily, getting off on technicality. Mistakes will be made. Should such a dire consequence be the price paid? Certainly not. It only encourages more distrust and dislike of the legal system and lawyers. Damned defense attornys. Maybe the way these officers went about it was incorrect, but dammit, a little girl was killed. It's not like it was a case of shoplifting or something. We afford criminals too many rights, in effect stripping the victims and victims families of theirs. I can't tell in words how much that just outrages me...I need to think about this some more, then post again...
patient1
Mr. Cheyenne
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2001
- Posts
- 11,362
It sounds familiar.
Illegally obtained evidence should never be admissable in a criminal proceding, it's like counting a touchdown when the ball carrier went out of bounds. Rewarding illegal behavior is something a judge shouldn't do.
I would understand if there was a situation in which life was at stake, that they would put that ahead of preparing a conviction.
It still wouldn't make it admissable.
Illegally obtained evidence should never be admissable in a criminal proceding, it's like counting a touchdown when the ball carrier went out of bounds. Rewarding illegal behavior is something a judge shouldn't do.
I would understand if there was a situation in which life was at stake, that they would put that ahead of preparing a conviction.
It still wouldn't make it admissable.
patient1
Mr. Cheyenne
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2001
- Posts
- 11,362
To me, the 5th is just the the flip side of the 1st & the "goes with out saying" right to privacy we've discussed before.
The fact that I totally forgot & overlooked the 6th in this circumstance by the time I started to respond reminds me that I never make sense ifI'm still here at 3AM.
Thank you, Lavvy , & good night.
The fact that I totally forgot & overlooked the 6th in this circumstance by the time I started to respond reminds me that I never make sense ifI'm still here at 3AM.
Thank you, Lavvy , & good night.
sch00lteacher
Social Security Sucks
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Posts
- 3,802
The cops knew what they were doing was wrong, they knew it would result in the evidence being thrown out if it was found out. I don't think they were thinking. I think they were being emotional. Cops are people too, and do get emotional, especially when kids are involved in homicides. I am a little surprised that they didn't just pull off the road behind a barn and beat the information out of the guy.
Speaking as a former enforcer. It is real hard sometimes to put your feelings aside and just go about your business.
I think that the more intellegent the cop, the more education he/she has, plays a role in following the rules correctly. Still when you have a dead kid, and a killer in your hands. It is real hard to be careful that his head doesn't hit the car when he is getting in, and stuff like that.
Bottom line, cops is people too. People fuck up.
Speaking as a former enforcer. It is real hard sometimes to put your feelings aside and just go about your business.
I think that the more intellegent the cop, the more education he/she has, plays a role in following the rules correctly. Still when you have a dead kid, and a killer in your hands. It is real hard to be careful that his head doesn't hit the car when he is getting in, and stuff like that.
Bottom line, cops is people too. People fuck up.
Last edited:
EvilBrat74
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2002
- Posts
- 565
Peace officers*New term i heard
* could be required to take drug screenings once a month and a lie detector test once a month.
Ya know basic stuff like do you follow the law system?
Do you abuse the law?
Stuff like that.
I know it wouldn't be worth a shit in court, but the state could get rid of the officers that are criminals themselves.
Just a thought.
* could be required to take drug screenings once a month and a lie detector test once a month.Ya know basic stuff like do you follow the law system?
Do you abuse the law?
Stuff like that.
I know it wouldn't be worth a shit in court, but the state could get rid of the officers that are criminals themselves.
Just a thought.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
lavender said:
The concept of "tainted evidence" not being admissible is somewhat incomprehensible to me. True, It is better that ten men go free because there is no evidence. However, it is intolerable that one guilty man go free because evidence exists but can't be used because of some technicality.
If evidence is tainted, it should be used AND those who tainted the evidence should be tried and convicted for violations of procedure and the constitution.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Our justice system is imbued with certain principles that can never be ignored for any case whatsoever, no matter what. This man, innocent or guilty, is constitutionally protected from an unfair trial and from unfair police procedures just like the rest of us are.
Which is more imporant, these constitutional principles or "justice" for the victim?
First, the criminal justice system is not about finding justice for the victim. The criminal justice system is solely about punishing the criminal so that s/he cannot or will learn not to do the crime again. Our justice system is not about the victim, it's about the criminal.
It is necessary to keep emotion out of criminal proceedings, in my view, to make sure that everyone has been treated fairly in accordance with the law. When you bring emotion into it, then you are pre-judging the accused and it is far more likely that evidence will be tainted and un-usable.
This case highlights how the police failed the victim and failed the criminal. They failed the victim by resorting to vigilante-tactics knowing that they were gathering evidence illegally. They failed the criminal by becoming justice vigilantes rather than professional police officers doing their job to ensure prosecution. They failed the system and the people by ignoring the constitutionally protected rights given to all people and by ignoring the very principles of our justice system that mke things right.
This is my pompous, completely un-informed opinion and not necessarily the opinions of people who actually know the way things work.
Which is more imporant, these constitutional principles or "justice" for the victim?
First, the criminal justice system is not about finding justice for the victim. The criminal justice system is solely about punishing the criminal so that s/he cannot or will learn not to do the crime again. Our justice system is not about the victim, it's about the criminal.
It is necessary to keep emotion out of criminal proceedings, in my view, to make sure that everyone has been treated fairly in accordance with the law. When you bring emotion into it, then you are pre-judging the accused and it is far more likely that evidence will be tainted and un-usable.
This case highlights how the police failed the victim and failed the criminal. They failed the victim by resorting to vigilante-tactics knowing that they were gathering evidence illegally. They failed the criminal by becoming justice vigilantes rather than professional police officers doing their job to ensure prosecution. They failed the system and the people by ignoring the constitutionally protected rights given to all people and by ignoring the very principles of our justice system that mke things right.
This is my pompous, completely un-informed opinion and not necessarily the opinions of people who actually know the way things work.
Similar threads
