Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
This is a complicated issue, and I think probably one that ought to be discussed in another thread, but here are some brief thoughts.
--In Canada, exclusion of evidence is never automatic--the court assesses the constitutional violation (what you call a "technicality"--that term really bugs me) and then assesses whether admission of the evidence "would bring the administration of justice into disrepute." At that point, it's basically a discretionary decision by the judge.
--Exclusion of evidence is pretty well the only remedy our society has against police misconduct. We need those constitutional protections, not for criminals, but for every Canadian citizen. The courts have to enforce these principles, which are fundamental to our justice system by excluding evidence that is collected in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.
--In the pre-Charter period, Canadian courts had held that there was no discretion to exclude legally admissible evidence, regardless of how it was collected. This led to some police actions that would curl your hair if you heard about them. We live in a more just society today, and if the cost is that occasionally evidence incriminating a bad person is excluded, I'm willing to pay it.
--Rafferty was convicted anyway. All including the evidence would have done is to give him an additional ground for appeal. This outcome is better for everyone, and better for justice.
|
The biggest problem I have with this one was that they classified the computer as a "place" not a "thing" so they didn't have a warrant to search the computer saying it was basically like his house and they weren't allowed inside it. Now this to me is ######ed, despite the fact you have conclusive evidence of the scummery of this DB, the laws are there to protect the criminal. I think 25 years in the electric chair would work