I was watching the news tonight & they reported about a young man that had been found guilty of murder. The problem was, the police allegedly pressured a confession out of him. His attorney & others are contending that his case should be thrown out. This got me to thinking about other cases of police bungled investigations. I don't mean to slam the police, after all, they do conduct an overwhelming number of clean investigations. However, it does bring a question to mind: If the police find iron clad proof that a criminal act was committed, but foul up on a technicality like failing to read them the Meranda act prior to their confession or some other procedural issue, should the suspect be allowed to walk? By this, I mean that the information they acquired due to a procedural error would be inadmissable in court & yet the evidence proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that they committed the crime. I know the laws are there to protect our civil rights, but have we gone so far away from plain ol' common horse sense? Shouldn't the police investigators be reprimanded, instead of letting an obviously guilty person walk? What are your thoughts?
This is an interesting topic. Although I have heard about or seen several instances where I thought it was pretty obvious that someone did it and were allowed to walk because of something, I still say yes. The only way to assure that the police play by the rules is to make them perfectly aware that if they don't the guy/gal is walking. Seems like one of those "lesser of two evils" type of things to me.
The problem is that disallowing "tainted" evidence really is the only way to punish those officers, etc. who do not follow the law. Allowing tainted evidence to convict someone just opens up a huge can of worms. First off, the police and prosecutors always think the guy they have in custody is definitely guilty whether he is or not. If the only punishment was going to be a fine that may or may not ever happen (many cops who have violated civil rights in Dallas weren't even reprimanded even though there was clear evidence that those cops broke the law), then that would encourage officers to break the rules to get what they need. Not let you see your attorney even though you've asked for him? Sure. Don't wait to get a warrant to search a house? Why not? Wake up a teenager accused of murder in the middle of the night to question him and take him to the murder scene in his underwear? Sure thing. The police often bend the rules (as apparently evidenced by this case where the police couldn't be bothered to follow the long-established law), the only way to stop more widespread abuse is to make the punishment for not following the law extremely severe, something that isn't going to happen... or to make the evidence gleaned from illegal activities be inadmissible. We see enough innocent people convicted of crimes with all the protections we have now. Sure, those protections also end up freeing the guilty from time to time, but I would still rather have that (and have cops who followed the law) than have more innocent people in jail (which is the probable outcome from lessening the standards the police have to follow).
Okay then, what about the families of the victims? Let's assume that it's the most heinous of crimes, murder. What do we tell the families? Sorry, but we're protecting your civil rights, because the police committed a procedural error? Hell of a dilemma, isn't it?
You say, the police broke the law, so the killer gets to go free. These aren't paperwork errors (for the most part), these are procedures that are the law of the land. Break the law, and this is what happens. The families of the victims should make known their displeasure with the Police for not caring enough about their loved one to follow the law and get a conviction. And the police should make every effort to not let it happen again. Seems to me that if the police cared about solving the crime, they'd take the time, effort and care to follow the law.
What do you tell the families of an innocent, railroaded by the police department? It's a double edged sword.
Evidence is not trown out for minor procedural errors. It is for major errors such as forgeting to read someone there maranda rights, preventing them from seeing and atourney or coercing a confession from them. Police know what they are doing and know the procedural law. If they have "iron clad" proof then they do not have to infringe on someones civil rights to provide that proof. I could wright an essay on this but im and kind of drunk right now.
The way criminal cases work is that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the crime. Plain and simple, if the evidence is not enough to pin the crime on the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt, then the suspect is not guilty. It might seem unfair, but it is our system.
