Wild Bill Posted August 28, 2012 Report Posted August 28, 2012 Would the courts acceptance of illegally obtained evidence apply only in cases of killings or would it apply to all court cases no matter the crime? I would expect in all cases! Just as I would expect that whoever obtained evidence in an illegal manner would also be charged in all cases! There needs to be a deterrence to prevent police and others from obtaining evidence in an illegal manner. I agree with that and support having those involved punished. Throwing away the evidence does hurt the crown's case, of course. So I can see that being a deterrent. However, it only further hurts the victim! Surely we can choose other punishments towards officers abusing their powers than to hurt the victims of a case? Should punishment not be focused on those who committed the sin? I truly do not understand this at all. Perhaps I am just too naive. I always thought the justice system was supposed to redress wrongs against victims, not magnify them as collateral damage in a cheap shot to punish an officer who made an error. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Peter F Posted August 28, 2012 Report Posted August 28, 2012 and surely you can understand the desireability of search warrants and such? They aren't there just to protect the cops and only the cops. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
dre Posted August 28, 2012 Report Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) I do not understand your argument, DR. Dre! I said a number of times that I supported charges against any officer for improperly obtaining evidence. Hang em, if you like! However, why throw that evidence out? Why let a rapist or some other perp go free, to wink at their victim as they go out the door? What has throwing out that evidence accomplished, other than maybe a bit of embarrassment to the officers involved, the way it is today? I'm saying if someone is to be punished let it be those who did the crime, namely obtaining evidence in an illegal manner. The evidence itself however, is what it is. Why punish the victim? So far, no one has even attempted to explain that to me, except for perhaps eyeball who told me that victims and their families should be proud to be martyrs to the high principles of society. They have just raged against the use of torture, which has nothing to do with what I asked. I absolutely DID explain that to you. You would throw our entire legal system away with these proposed changes. There would be nobody at all with any compelling interest in making sure evidence is properly gathered. Right now, improper evidentiary procedure is challenged by an advocate for the accused. In your system nobody would challenge it... there would be no point in defense attorneys challenging evidentiary procedure because a successful challenge would do nothing at all to benefit their client. So on a case by case basis who is going to do this? Another new gigantic government agency? The police themselves? COUGH COUGH!. . And who is going to prosecute the improper evidence gatherers? A parallel court system that reviews the chain of custody of every single shred of evidence? And what if theres improper evidence gathering in the trial against the improper evidence gatherers? Your idea would result in the most awkward useless justice system imaginable replacing the most effective justice system in human history. And for absolutely no good reason at all... The system we have now works very well. The police know that if they break the law obtaining evidence they wont be allowed to use it so for the most part they follow the rules and do good police work. And the work to ensure the integrity of evidentiary procedure is done by EXACTLY the right person... an advocate for the accused! And its done at the EXPENSE of the accused as well. You would be doing nothing but creating gigantic costly new beaurocracies that wouldnt be effective because they would be run by the same people improperly gathering evidence (the government), and the ammount of corruption in our justice system would skyrocket. And you would be doing this at a time when our existing system is WORKING to reduce the rates of serious crimes. The rules around evidence gathering work exactly as they should. Edited August 28, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wild Bill Posted August 28, 2012 Report Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) The rules around evidence gathering work exactly as they should. Well my good doctor, perhaps you are right. Perhaps Peter is as well. Still, it seems to me somehow that the victim in such cases is of the lowest priority. Justice for him or her seems to be forgotten, except for eyeball's idea of the victim becoming some kind of heroic martyr to our "highest principles". I guess where I diverge from the thinking behind how our system treats this issue is that I believe that the justice system should redress wrong to victims first. Not as some faceless mass concept but rather as specific individuals. I have posted before over the years of how I believe in the "consent to be governed", where citizens long ago gave up handling justice personally, with all the mistakes, over-reactions and iniquities that entails in favour of justice being the province of the King, or State, who would have far better resources to administer justice and if necessary, punishment. Somehow, to blithely accept letting the guilty walk if necessary rather than accept evidence improperly obtained seems contrary to putting the victim first and foremost. I understand the need for deterring officers from abusing the process. Couldn't this be accomplished with extremely severe punishment for improperly obtaining evidence? No matter how anyone in this thread dresses it up, it still seems to me that the victim is considered of lesser priority. I had thought that courts and trials were a means to search for truth and justice, for victims most of all. This thread has convinced me that I must be mistaken. Edited August 28, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
PIK Posted August 28, 2012 Report Posted August 28, 2012 It is all about the criminal now, I just don't understand how this happened. How did the criminal gain more respect from the left then the victim. Does the left realize how this looks, where you would let innocent people die just to stick it to harper. Disgusting. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
dre Posted August 28, 2012 Report Posted August 28, 2012 Well my good doctor, perhaps you are right. Perhaps Peter is as well. Still, it seems to me somehow that the victim in such cases is of the lowest priority. Justice for him or her seems to be forgotten, except for eyeball's idea of the victim becoming some kind of heroic martyr to our "highest principles". I guess where I diverge from the thinking behind how our system treats this issue is that I believe that the justice system should redress wrong to victims first. Not as some faceless mass concept but rather as specific individuals. I have posted before over the years of how I believe in the "consent to be governed", where citizens long ago gave up handling justice personally, with all the mistakes, over-reactions and iniquities that entails in favour of justice being the province of the King, or State, who would have far better resources to administer justice and if necessary, punishment. Somehow, to blithely accept letting the guilty walk if necessary rather than accept evidence improperly obtained seems contrary to putting the victim first and foremost. I understand the need for deterring officers from abusing the process. Couldn't this be accomplished with extremely severe punishment for improperly obtaining evidence? No matter how anyone in this thread dresses it up, it still seems to me that the victim is considered of lesser priority. I had thought that courts and trials were a means to search for truth and justice, for victims most of all. This thread has convinced me that I must be mistaken. Well I dont think you are mistaken per say... you are identifying an element of the system that results in some outcomes you find unacceptable. And rightly so! In your scenario a person who is obviously guilty has escapted justice. But if you want to reform the system you need to look beyond these negative outcomes, and look at why things work the way they do, and try to propose a system to replace it that would be an improvement and you are tackling this part... this obviously would be a lot of work and you are under no obligation to do it. But you arent going to have much luck selling your idea to anything but reactionists unless you do. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wild Bill Posted August 28, 2012 Report Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Well I dont think you are mistaken per say... you are identifying an element of the system that results in some outcomes you find unacceptable. And rightly so! In your scenario a person who is obviously guilty has escapted justice. But if you want to reform the system you need to look beyond these negative outcomes, and look at why things work the way they do, and try to propose a system to replace it that would be an improvement and you are tackling this part... this obviously would be a lot of work and you are under no obligation to do it. But you arent going to have much luck selling your idea to anything but reactionists unless you do. Once again you are probably correct, Dr. Dre. Still, I'll bet I would have little problem selling my idea to victims! More than that, whenever a victim leaves a courtroom feeling he became a victim twice, our system has failed! If it happens too often it will breed disrespect. That happens too often all by itself. We don't need our system deliberately fostering this attitude. Edited August 28, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
eyeball Posted August 29, 2012 Report Posted August 29, 2012 Still, it seems to me somehow that the victim in such cases is of the lowest priority. Justice for him or her seems to be forgotten, except for eyeball's idea of the victim becoming some kind of heroic martyr to our "highest principles". You're completely full of crap, that's not what I said at all. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted August 29, 2012 Report Posted August 29, 2012 I guess where I diverge from the thinking behind how our system treats this issue is that I believe that the justice system should redress wrong to victims first. Not as some faceless mass concept but rather as specific individuals. For starters, those would be the poor bastards who were tortured in our country's fine name. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) ...... Edited August 30, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) You are all about discussing hypotheticals and short on discussing reality. ??? Unlike your "ticking time bomb" hypothesis--a mostly discredited theme, incidentally (or not so incidentally). Edited August 30, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
PIK Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 People have become to soft in this country. That makes this country ripe for the picking. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 People have become to soft in this country. That makes this country ripe for the picking. I agree. No one is weaker than the snivelling cowards who support torture; except maybe the "kinda/sorta" supporters, who think it should be done elsewhere, and then given (or sold) to us...so that Canada can keep its hands "clean" (lol!), while other countries seeking our approval can torture on our behalf. sure, these little sadists think they're "hard" and tough. But really they're just...weaklings! Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Wilber Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 ??? Unlike your "ticking time bomb" hypothesis--a mostly discredited theme, incidentally (or not so incidentally). Who are you quoting? It wasn't me. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 except maybe the "kinda/sorta" supporters, who think it should be done elsewhere, and then given (or sold) to us. I agree with the rest of your post, but not this. I don't support torture at any time. What I do think, is that if someone else comes across credible information, and it happens to have been obtained through torture, and they tell us (lots of ifs there), we should use it to protect Canadians. We shouldn't be paying for the information or encouraging the use of torture by others though. Quote
Wilber Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 I don't support torture at any time. What I do think, is that if someone else comes across credible information, and it happens to have been obtained through torture, and they tell us (lots of ifs there), we should use it to protect Canadians. We shouldn't be paying for the information or encouraging the use of torture by others though. That's what I've been trying to say. eyeball and bleeding heart would rather have you take one for the team so they wouldn't feel uncomfortable. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 I agree with the rest of your post, but not this. I don't support torture at any time. What I do think, is that if someone else comes across credible information, and it happens to have been obtained through torture, and they tell us (lots of ifs there), we should use it to protect Canadians. We shouldn't be paying for the information or encouraging the use of torture by others though. Yes, and as I understand it, this is Wilber's and Wild Bill's stance as well. Not to torture, or support it; but to use information already accumulated through torture. Problematic or not, I understand the principle here. But there is another issue. The issue--and someone else pointed this out on this thread, I believe--is that Canada would have done this anyway. Does anyone even doubt it? That we would...and have? Public statements, then, can plausibly be seen as a message to the torturers, pretty thinly-veiled, but stinking of Plausible Deniability.. In effect that we "officially" don't condone such behaviour...but in a way, wink wink, sure we do, and are willing to listen if you got something for us. Future tense, you see. It is condoning it, in my view...why else go public with what is already occurring, if not to send a message? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) That's what I've been trying to say. eyeball and bleeding heart would rather have you take one for the team so they wouldn't feel uncomfortable. Well, as you undoubtedly are now aware, I have made some effort to understand your view, while your preferred "debate" method is to avoid such sedulous weakness of your own rock-solid position. Better to mock a caricature of your own invention. Bravo. Edited August 30, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Wilber Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 Yes, and as I understand it, this is Wilber's and Wild Bill's stance as well. Not to torture, or support it; but to use information already accumulated through torture. Problematic or not, I understand the principle here. But there is another issue. The issue--and someone else pointed this out on this thread, I believe--is that Canada would have done this anyway. Does anyone even doubt it? That we would...and have? Public statements, then, can plausibly be seen as a message to the torturers, pretty thinly-veiled, but stinking of Plausible Deniability.. In effect that we "officially" don't condone such behaviour...but in a way, wink wink, sure we do, and are willing to listen if you got something for us. Future tense, you see. It is condoning it, in my view...why else go public with what is already occurring, if not to send a message? To clarify something. These were not public statements made by the government. According the the OP's link, they were directives given to the RCMP and CBSA that were released to Canadian Press under the freedom of information act. Personally I would rather the government clearly spell out its policy to these agencies rather than operate on some nudge nudge wink wink basis. That is the only way there can be any accountability. Well, as you undoubtedly are now aware, I have made some effort to understand your view, while your preferred "debate" method is to avoid such sedulous weakness of your own rock-solid position.Better to mock a caricature of your own invention. Bravo. My position is far from rock solid. The only solidity in my position is that these situations require flexibility. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) To clarify something. These were not public statements made by the government. According the the OP's link, they were directives given to the RCMP and CBSA that were released to Canadian Press under the freedom of information act. Yes, I'm not sure how I missed that pretty crucial fact. My apologies. But in reading the article, a lot of questions are instantly begged, and I assume underlines part of your position of situational flexibility. For example, posters have been assuming this all about information already gleaned through possible use of torture. Honestly, I can't imagine where this idea surfaced. The article, including in its quoting of the relevant document, says quite the opposite. That is, part of the concern, from human rights groups, O'Connor, and others, is about future possibilities of abuse, as instigated by both the receiving and giving of information to potential torturers. Edited August 30, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Wilber Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 That is, part of the concern, from human rights groups, O'Connor, and others, is about future possibilities of abuse, as instigated by both the receiving and giving of information to potential torturers. It should be a concern and that's why I think there should be a clear policy. Ir makes it much more difficult to plead ignorance. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
dre Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 It should be a concern and that's why I think there should be a clear policy. Ir makes it much more difficult to plead ignorance. Any law should also make sure that even if we DO have to use information from torturers we should report them to the human rights commision, and also suspend diplomatic relations with them. That way we use the information, but our stance on torture remains clear and we arent sending any mixed messages. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 Any law should also make sure that even if we DO have to use information from torturers we should report them to the human rights commision, and also suspend diplomatic relations with them. That way we use the information, but our stance on torture remains clear and we arent sending any mixed messages. I agree with that. Quote
Wilber Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 Any law should also make sure that even if we DO have to use information from torturers we should report them to the human rights commision, and also suspend diplomatic relations with them. That way we use the information, but our stance on torture remains clear and we arent sending any mixed messages. As long as you realize it would probably be the last information you get from them. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
dre Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) As long as you realize it would probably be the last information you get from them. Is that a bad thing? I mean if nobody was torturing people then we wouldnt get ANY information from torturers. Would that be bad? THats the thing is no matter how you slice it if you endorse or accept the results of a process you are endorsing the process itself. If its ok to get information by torturing then we should torture folks! If we think its a crime, then we should help bring torturers to justice, and lending our tacit approval by saying we think the information is A-OK does the exact opposite. But yes of course Im ok with that. The chances of me dying in an attack that could be prevented by using information from foreign torturers is not statistically significant. Im comfortable with my level of exposure to that risk. I COULD die in a terrorist attack that fits this description its true... but Im more likely to get struck to death by lightening. I suppose if terrorism became a statistically sifnificant threat to my safety Id have to revisit this... Edited August 31, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.