« Last Night's Entertainment | Main | The right number of women in politics »
July 18, 2008
Excluding evidence when the police break the law
Law and Order fans often cheer when the thuggish police violate a criminal's civil liberties and they are found not guilty as a result. I'd never thought about it before, but the NY Times (Should Suspects Go Free When Police Blunder?) reports that the US is the only country that does so.
Although the textual argument for excluding the fruit of the poisoned vine may be weak, I have to say that I prefer this rule. In the US Grand Juries, police, and district attorneys have so much power and resources that the dependent has a severe disadvantage. Add in the fact that the police are permitted to lie and mislead suspects and you have a recipe for the state to tread heavily over the innocent. It may not be pretty to free the guilty but we are far freer for it.
Posted by OneEyedMan at July 18, 2008 2:48 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)