Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Here are the facts:
We don't have a problem with this. We neither get stupid situations where obvious criminals walk free like that, nor do we have major problems with illegal searches or police misconduct regarding civil rights. (We have problems, but every place has their problems.)
You have criminals walking free. And considering that news of criminals walking free because of illegal searches aren't that rare, it doesn't seem to actually do any better in protecting people from illegal searches. It might not be worse, but it certainly doesn't do any better.
You can scream constitutional rights and history of philosophy all you want.
The facts are still that your system has a problem ours doesn't, and our solution hasn't done anything to create the problems you claim it would.
Also, US is relevant because they have a comparable system. Their failures show that the your system is not what actually protects citizens rights in Canada, its the relative high quality of your legal system in general.
You could change the law to something less dumb and it would be just fine.
But obviously it's not going to happen, so that's the end of this debate for me.
|
It's difficult for us to research into Finnish cases to actual ascertain if your statement of "There aren't any problems" is factual. Your characterization that only Canada, the US, and British Colonies have this policy has been proven false. Britain policy is also closer to the Finnish policy than US/Canada.
From the article posted about from 2003 where there apparently were discussions around whether or not the finnish system actually met Human rights requirements.
Quote:
However, the validity of the traditional doctrine has recently been questioned.33 The critique is that
the traditional approach is not necessarily in harmony with the requirements stemming from the rule of
law and constitutional and human rights, notably principles of legality and fair trial. Therefore, this
”new approach” heavily underscores the necessity of taking into account constitutional and human
rights in the determination of the admissibility and status of evidence. The admissibility and status of
evidence should be assessed in light of the general requirements for limitations on constitutional
rights, especially the requirement of proportionality.34 The new approach also seems to advocate the
need to adopt sufficiently clear and precise written legal rules to which judges should adhere to when
seeking to resolve the admissibility and status of evidence.35
|
So Finland certainly has some potential issues that legal minds in Finland are concerned about. I don't think we can take your statement that everything is fine at face value. And given my lack of understanding of the Finnish language I am not really in a position to argue further.
