----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [Seebergers] Stella Award Candidates
> Kevin wrote: > > >If the data 'would have been found anyway' then why > >didn't they find it, anyway? > > > I think most investigations follow leads in the order which promises the > best returns, and if they don't know it's tainted they are going to > follow a good lead (it doesn't have to be another country - it could be > the next county or the next precinct). But, in many ways leads are as important as evidence. Lets say that police are allowed to use any leads at all, even ones obtained by illegal means, in order to find the evidence to catch crooks and there will be a strong incentive for illegal gathering of information. The tradeoff would be whether the potential loss of evidence that could have been obtained legally but was tarnished and unusable because it was obtained illegally is outweighted by all the evidence that could be gathered based on the leads generated. If I were to play cops and robbers as a realistic computer game, and this move were allowed, I'd use it. I'd illegally wiretap the homes of people loosely connected with the crime. Or, I'd torture someone I already had the goods on, until he gave leads on his accomplaces. Then, I'd get the clean evidence, and go from there. If you offer a someone a chance to reach a goal by a given means, game theory suggests that they will use it. I agree with Kevin that slippery slope arguements are not the best. But, this isn't a slippery slope arguement. The Fool made a slippery slope arguement, IMHO, when he said that the proposed home guard program (having a single toll free number to report possible terrorism, having mailmen look out for suspicicious activity) is a step towards a police state. This is a game theory arugement. Dan M. If a less promising lead is later > followed up and found to produce the evidence, it's too late; under the > American system, the incontrovertible evidence has already been tainted > by the first lead which pointed in that direction. Who wins from that? > Certainly not the cop who diligently followed the lead in good faith, > certainly not the victim, nor the future victims of the criminal who is > set free despite there being no doubt that he committed the crime, and > not even the general public who rely on the cop to follow the rules of > evidence, because he had no way of knowing. Human nature says he is less > likely to follow the rules in future, because those rules set the > criminal free. > > I still say tainted evidence should be thrown out, but other evidence > stemming from it can't... Your authorities are trying to protect your > citizenry from the mafia, the triads, the terrorists, and the dealers - > none of them are going to follow the rules, but they sure as hell are > going to exploit the rules to make sure they can continue their killing > spree. It must be devastating for your DAs when their carefully built > case unravels... > > Cheers > Russell C. >
