If evidence against a criminal is found illegally, should it be counted in a trial?

Asked by: PeytonJMiller
  • Yes, it is still evidence. Possibly the most accurate account.

    A person who would contradict my thesis would probably argue that it is done in futility because the prosecuted may try to downplay their behavior, cover up something or someone, conflict upon conflict, and it would be of no use to or confuse the jury.
    It is however imperative to look at what we would be gaining if we looked a little closer; looked inside the minds, souls and behaviors of the parties involved. A person who obtained the evidence illegally would have a very unique perspective: he or she would understand the criminal world. They will be aware of things that go on inside the people who act upon their rage and selfishness. In order to help, we must first understand. A commonly good citizen may look down on those who take from others but those who take only make others suffer because they suffer deeply within themselves. It is said, "love thy neighbor as thyself". When people speak the truth and come to verdicts, it should come from a place of love instead of criticism, arrogance and hate. Love for whom may be the tricky part but, we should as humans of God, love and pray for even our foes. We are all connected and if you choose to live your life to help others instead of harm and excessively punish them, you in turn will be rewarded.
    Polygraphs will test their honesty. Psychiatrists will analyze why they lie, what there is to lie about and what is true.
    When you examine every possible article of evidence, you see the bigger picture. Someone may uncover some profound truth.

  • It's evidence! It should be counted!

    But that doesn't mean that the person who got the evidence should go unpunished. If you did something wrong, you must be punished for it, that's the law, so if a person obtained crucial information about a criminal by trespassing, that person should be given the typical punishment for trespassing. You can't discount facts just because you don't like how they were acquired, they're facts.

  • Yes, in most cases.

    If it is true evidence that shows, such as DNA, that a person is guilty, then that evidence needs to be used so that a conviction can happen. Otherwise, we are just sending guilty people who are criminals back out into the street to hurt other people again because of a technicality.

  • How could everyone just ignore it?

    Evidence is important. If someone gets it illegal, prosecute that person separately. Such an act is obviously a crime, and can be punished. This would be more discouraging towards such an act. Evidence is very important, and it would be unfair to prosecute without using know evidence. Every piece brings you closer to the truth.

  • Two wrongs don't make a right.

    To be honest, I'm not quite sure what i think, which is why I'm asking the question. But I suppose that if it were to be allowed, it would just lead to more law breaking in the end--so maybe we can sacrifice one specific case in order to prevent a domino effect of undermining the law.

  • Against the Constitution

    Yes, some people have escaped the justice of the law because of this. However, under the Exclusionary Rule in the Constitution, it forbids evidence collected or analyzed in the defendants Constitutional rights. This rule applies to the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, which forbids illegal search and seizures (4th), forbids self-incrimination (5th), and right to counsel (6th)

  • No. The right to privacy of the citizens would be disrespected.

    The citizens would no longer feel safe and secure because at anytime somebody might be spying at them because they are being suspected as criminals by the police. Their phone conversation, emails, social media accounts, and even ordinary private conversation at home, all these private things would be denied to them. Police officers need no search warrant to enter to the house of their suspects because anyway all the evidence they can obtain will be accepted in court. If all these things happen, the basic human right of privacy is threatened which should not be.

  • Maybe in another country, but not here

    Every single citizen in this country is protected by the Constitution. Every single citizen in this country has a duty to live by the Constitution. This includes police. This includes our entire government. The law is never perfect, in any society. But once we start undermining our own law, things get out of hand.

    Besides, in most cases it's not that hard to get a proper search warrant.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.