Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I'm not familiar with the judge's specific findings here, but I do want to point out that your premise is flawed: in essence, you believe that wherever there is "conclusive evidence" of a person's guilt, that should be enough.
It's not. We're a nation of laws, and one of our expectations is that the Police, in doing their duty in enforcing the law also obey it themselves.
That means that sometimes conclusive evidence of a person's guilt will be excluded at trial--that's just how our system works, and it's a good system (it's not perfect, but it's better than just about anything else). And the test for whether evidence should be excluded can never be how conclusively it establishes someone's guilt. That's putting the cart before the horse.
I think your analysis here is clouded by your certainty of Rafferty's guilt; that's fine, because so is mine. So let's forget about him. Let's think of a hypothetical Canadian instead. Let's call him "trublmaker." (Note: everything described below has happened at some point in the history of Canadian criminal law, though not all of these things together, at least not as far as I know.)
|
This was a mostly bang-on assessment. One of Canada's most famous criminal cases notes that we assess evidence in a qualified search for the truth in a fair trial. Therefore, not all evidence is admitted that leads to truth - it has to be qualified with justice. And that's why the computer files were rightfully tossed at trial.
Trublmaker, I just wanted to add that there is a constitutionally-protected right to the assumption of innocence until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in Canada as well. People often operate counter to this, and assume guilt until innocence is proven. The fact of the matter is, criminal procedure isn't a level-playing field - the Crown is fighting an uphill battle the whole way. If the Crown can come out the other side having proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it legitimizes the ability of the state to take away a person's liberty.