Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 03-16-2012, 03:10 PM   #61
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Vernon View Post
Why would anyone admit to a crime that carried an automatic death sentence? Doesn't sound like a person we want in our society in the first place if your willing to be that stupid.
Good lord are you naive. You know what, keep your head in the sand over there and let the rest of us live in the real world.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 04:38 PM   #62
Iowa_Flames_Fan
Referee
 
Iowa_Flames_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
Exp:
Default

I agree that we can't base our criminal justice system on a single case--and this case shows us why.

Personally, there is no way that I can be objective about this Rafferty scumbag. There is no system of laws that will allow me, as a dad and as a human being, to impose any punishment on him that will be sufficient.

Death penalty? Too easy. Life in prison? Too cushy. Torture? Better, but he did worse than torture somebody. He killed a little girl.

Anything short of tying him up and leaving him alone with me, holding a claw hammer is not going to satisfy my personal sense of what's just here. And that's why my personal sense of justice is not going to work in this situation.

Our criminal justice system needs to develop ways of dealing with people like this that shows, fundamentally, that we are interested in justice in the abstract, not justice on the individual level--and that even the least deserving in our society receive trial fairness and humane treatment, to ensure that the law serves its function as the arbiter or orderly resolution of disputes and general maintenance of social order.

Because if it were up to me? I'm a dad--and I have a little girl--so I'd kill him. Slowly. PAINFULLY. Nothing else could ever seem just to me. But that path leads to anarchy.
Iowa_Flames_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Old 03-16-2012, 04:59 PM   #63
Mike Vernon
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: 89' First Round Game Seven Overtime
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403 View Post
Good lord are you naive. You know what, keep your head in the sand over there and let the rest of us live in the real world.
Good Lord your an Ass
Mike Vernon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mike Vernon For This Useful Post:
Old 03-16-2012, 07:25 PM   #64
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

I do not know where the parents are finding the strength to sit in the courtroom and listen to the details of what happened to tori.......
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 09:27 PM   #65
BCGirl
Farm Team Player
 
BCGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kelowna, BC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Vernon View Post
Back on topic these two people deserve death for what they have done. How can anyone argue against that?
Agreed.

They can get the death penalty, or as mentioned before, release them to the public. They won't last ten minutes. I personally want my turn to have him endure the agony he put that poor child through before his life is sapped out.
I think he should be hung above a pit of croc's and slowly lowered down to em. Yes, sounds very Peter Pan-ish. Yet the terror and dread that fills him as he sees what is coming at the end of his life-I want nothing more.
BCGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 09:10 PM   #66
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...y-verdict.html

Found guilty on all counts. Thank God, I was worried without the computer evidence and no definitive proof of sexual assault he might walk or get a lesser conviction.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Old 05-11-2012, 09:15 PM   #67
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

This is good news, hopefully he does ot appeal........
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 01:02 AM   #68
dissentowner
Franchise Player
 
dissentowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Too bad they won't place in him in general population.
dissentowner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 08:46 AM   #69
JohnnyHowDoO'duya
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Exp:
Default

i read about the computer evidence that wasnt admissible and having a tough time wrapping my head around how such important details could be disqualified over a technicality.

someone explain to me how society is protected by distuingishing how evidence is collected? can you imagine being a juror who set this guy free only to find out after the fact about his computer searches?
JohnnyHowDoO'duya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 11:23 AM   #70
Iowa_Flames_Fan
Referee
 
Iowa_Flames_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyHowDoO'duya View Post
i read about the computer evidence that wasnt admissible and having a tough time wrapping my head around how such important details could be disqualified over a technicality.

someone explain to me how society is protected by distuingishing how evidence is collected? can you imagine being a juror who set this guy free only to find out after the fact about his computer searches?
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.
Iowa_Flames_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Old 05-12-2012, 11:32 AM   #71
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I was concerned about Rafferty being let loose or getting a lighter sentence because of the balls up of his girlfriends testimony, a lack of forensic evidence due to the body being lost to long and the inability of the crown to present the laptop evidence.

If I had been a juror and had let him go and then learned about the childporn and other evidence excluded, I probably would have hung himself.

I would be all for the death penalty but the case to me wouldn't be strong enough to support execution by legal standards.

I'm surprisingly ok with him spending at least 25 years in prison, suffering 24 hours a day in his solitude.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 11:47 AM   #72
trublmaker
First Line Centre
 
trublmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the belly of the beast.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan View Post
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
trublmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 12:45 PM   #73
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trublmaker View Post
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
No they're really not. The law is there to protect innocent citizens, which Rafferty was until his conviction. Canada runs a common law system, which operates on the principle of stare decisis. You can't just pick and choose when you want the legal system to operate to the letter of the law. You end up with major legitimacy issues.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 08:40 PM   #74
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

Todays globe and mail and an article indicating what rafferty's life will be like....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2430837/

Hopefully a few years of drudgery and isolation will wipe that smirk off of his face.

I am still trying to figure out how he was able to attract so many ladies.....I also found it some interesting to read about some of the stuff he did and did not do to throw the police off of his scent......
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 09:07 PM   #75
MrMastodonFarm
Lifetime Suspension
 
MrMastodonFarm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone View Post
Todays globe and mail and an article indicating what rafferty's life will be like....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2430837/
Quote:
Kingston Penitentiary, the 177-year-old fortress that is home to Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams
Good company
MrMastodonFarm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 09:24 PM   #76
Iowa_Flames_Fan
Referee
 
Iowa_Flames_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trublmaker View Post
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
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.)

Trublmaker is suspected of an offence, but there's no evidence yet. (we don't know if he's guilty or not; at this stage, that doesn't yet matter). The police arrive one morning at trublmaker's workplace, and without advising him of his rights they start questioning him, right in front of his co-workers.

Then, they cuff him, and frog-march him past his boss's office. He's so fired, but that's the least of his worries right now. They put him in a car and bring him down to the police station where they take all of his clothes away, apparently for forensic testing. They ask him for samples of hair and saliva, and dental impressions. When he refuses, they hold him down and pull out a clump of his hair. They pry his mouth open with handcuffs and forcibly take dental impressions from him, almost dislocating his jaw.

They leave him in a cold room with only a bench to sleep on for 6 hours before someone finally gives him a blanket. It smells like urine, but he's cold enough that he doesn't care. He blows his nose into a kleenex and discards it; this kleenex is later collected for DNA evidence, even though he didn't consent to give a sample.

It's another hour before the interrogation begins. At this point, someone finally thinks to advise trublmaker that he has the right to contact a lawyer, and that he can choose not to say anything, and that anything he DOES say can be given in evidence.

Trublmaker is interrogated, naked and cold, for five hours. During this time, the police lie to him, claiming they have evidence against him when in fact they don't have anything at all. They tell him that it would be better if he confessed; better for his mother, who's 85 years old and frail. They tell him that it would be better for his girlfriend. They even tell him that if he doesn't confess they will investigate his girlfriend for the crime.

Then, he is left alone for another 9 hours, still naked, still cold. It feels like a meat locker in his cell. It's now been 21 hours since he's had anything to eat, though the police did offer him water from time to time during the interrogation. Most people don't know what this sort of experience is like, but at this point, trublmaker begins to doubt himself. Could he be guilty? He doesn't think so. But everything seems so insane right now. He contemplates suicide.

Later, a person comes into his cell dressed as a priest. He offers to take trublmaker's confession. Trublmaker talks to him for a while, not realizing that this person is not a priest at all, but an undercover police officer.

Eventually, trublmaker makes a self-incriminatory statement. At trial, trublmaker finds that this statement is the key, and virtually the only, piece of evidence against him. In effect, the only issue at trial is whether the statement, and the other physical evidence collected from him, should be admitted as evidence against him.

Here's the question. Should that evidence be admitted? There are two possible scenarios:

1. Let's say trublmaker is guilty. Guilty as hell. He knows it, the cops know it, everyone knows it. Without that evidence, he'll walk--but he is guilty as sin.

2. On the other hand, let's say trublmaker is NOT guilty. He's innocent. It's all a misunderstanding. He has no idea why the cops were interested in him, and now REALLY wishes he'd kept his head and not made the statement that's being used against him.

Now ask yourself: does it matter if it's 1 or 2?

The answer is no. Trublmaker's guilt or innocence literally makes no difference at all at this stage. At the evidence stage the law literally does not know whether he's guilty, and it doesn't care, except to the extent that it presumes his innocence until he is found guilty.

Until then, all the law cares about is how the evidence was collected, and whether that evidence should be admissible against him. And that is quite proper, regardless of whether trublmaker did or didn't do it, and regardless of how inculpatory the specific evidence is.

Personally, I'm glad the evidence was excluded in this case. Here, Rafferty was found guilty. That's significant, because he was found guilty without the use of questionable evidence, which makes the verdict harder to attack on appeal. All including the evidence would do is to give him an argument on appeal that he might not otherwise have. This outcome is better for everyone.

But at the evidence stage the law doesn't--and can't--turn its mind to whether a guy is guilty or innocent. It merely assesses how the evidence was collected, whether this violated the Charter, and whether its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Iowa_Flames_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Old 05-13-2012, 05:38 AM   #77
VO #23
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan View Post
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.
VO #23 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VO #23 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-13-2012, 10:02 AM   #78
trublmaker
First Line Centre
 
trublmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the belly of the beast.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan View Post
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.)

Trublmaker is suspected of an offence, but there's no evidence yet. (we don't know if he's guilty or not; at this stage, that doesn't yet matter). The police arrive one morning at trublmaker's workplace, and without advising him of his rights they start questioning him, right in front of his co-workers.

Then, they cuff him, and frog-march him past his boss's office. He's so fired, but that's the least of his worries right now. They put him in a car and bring him down to the police station where they take all of his clothes away, apparently for forensic testing. They ask him for samples of hair and saliva, and dental impressions. When he refuses, they hold him down and pull out a clump of his hair. They pry his mouth open with handcuffs and forcibly take dental impressions from him, almost dislocating his jaw.

They leave him in a cold room with only a bench to sleep on for 6 hours before someone finally gives him a blanket. It smells like urine, but he's cold enough that he doesn't care. He blows his nose into a kleenex and discards it; this kleenex is later collected for DNA evidence, even though he didn't consent to give a sample.

It's another hour before the interrogation begins. At this point, someone finally thinks to advise trublmaker that he has the right to contact a lawyer, and that he can choose not to say anything, and that anything he DOES say can be given in evidence.

Trublmaker is interrogated, naked and cold, for five hours. During this time, the police lie to him, claiming they have evidence against him when in fact they don't have anything at all. They tell him that it would be better if he confessed; better for his mother, who's 85 years old and frail. They tell him that it would be better for his girlfriend. They even tell him that if he doesn't confess they will investigate his girlfriend for the crime.

Then, he is left alone for another 9 hours, still naked, still cold. It feels like a meat locker in his cell. It's now been 21 hours since he's had anything to eat, though the police did offer him water from time to time during the interrogation. Most people don't know what this sort of experience is like, but at this point, trublmaker begins to doubt himself. Could he be guilty? He doesn't think so. But everything seems so insane right now. He contemplates suicide.

Later, a person comes into his cell dressed as a priest. He offers to take trublmaker's confession. Trublmaker talks to him for a while, not realizing that this person is not a priest at all, but an undercover police officer.

Eventually, trublmaker makes a self-incriminatory statement. At trial, trublmaker finds that this statement is the key, and virtually the only, piece of evidence against him. In effect, the only issue at trial is whether the statement, and the other physical evidence collected from him, should be admitted as evidence against him.

Here's the question. Should that evidence be admitted? There are two possible scenarios:

1. Let's say trublmaker is guilty. Guilty as hell. He knows it, the cops know it, everyone knows it. Without that evidence, he'll walk--but he is guilty as sin.

2. On the other hand, let's say trublmaker is NOT guilty. He's innocent. It's all a misunderstanding. He has no idea why the cops were interested in him, and now REALLY wishes he'd kept his head and not made the statement that's being used against him.

Now ask yourself: does it matter if it's 1 or 2?

The answer is no. Trublmaker's guilt or innocence literally makes no difference at all at this stage. At the evidence stage the law literally does not know whether he's guilty, and it doesn't care, except to the extent that it presumes his innocence until he is found guilty.

Until then, all the law cares about is how the evidence was collected, and whether that evidence should be admissible against him. And that is quite proper, regardless of whether trublmaker did or didn't do it, and regardless of how inculpatory the specific evidence is.

Personally, I'm glad the evidence was excluded in this case. Here, Rafferty was found guilty. That's significant, because he was found guilty without the use of questionable evidence, which makes the verdict harder to attack on appeal. All including the evidence would do is to give him an argument on appeal that he might not otherwise have. This outcome is better for everyone.

But at the evidence stage the law doesn't--and can't--turn its mind to whether a guy is guilty or innocent. It merely assesses how the evidence was collected, whether this violated the Charter, and whether its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
This is about "finding conclusive evidence" in the course of a legal search in his house but then saying you can't use it cause it's on a computer not beating a confession out of the guy when you have zero evidence against him. It reminds me of one of the many Bacon brother cases out here where they found stashes of guns(hand guns, assault rifles etc.), flak jackets, drugs and cash in their house but the case was thrown out because of a technicality in the search warrent. They're caught redhanded but let go and more people got killed. Now I fully believe in everyone has their rights and charters and so on but sometimes common sense has to prevail and in this one not allowing the jury to see what a sick pr!ck this guy is was a mistake, what if the jury got it wrong because they didn't know everything? If I was a juror I'd be pissed fortunately they got it right, but what if they didn't? I still think 25 years in the electric chair works
trublmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 10:19 AM   #79
Iowa_Flames_Fan
Referee
 
Iowa_Flames_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trublmaker View Post
This is about "finding conclusive evidence" in the course of a legal search in his house but then saying you can't use it cause it's on a computer not beating a confession out of the guy when you have zero evidence against him. It reminds me of one of the many Bacon brother cases out here where they found stashes of guns(hand guns, assault rifles etc.), flak jackets, drugs and cash in their house but the case was thrown out because of a technicality in the search warrent. They're caught redhanded but let go and more people got killed. Now I fully believe in everyone has their rights and charters and so on but sometimes common sense has to prevail and in this one not allowing the jury to see what a sick pr!ck this guy is was a mistake, what if the jury got it wrong because they didn't know everything? If I was a juror I'd be pissed fortunately they got it right, but what if they didn't? I still think 25 years in the electric chair works
Requiring our law enforcement officers to themselves follow the law is not a "technicality." Sorry, it just isn't.

I don't think you're understanding the point of my post above--the point is not to compare what happened here to what has happened in past instances in Canadian judicial history. It's to point out that when we consider whether to exclude evidence because of a violation of a Charter-protected right, we don't consider whether a guy was guilty, or whether the evidence shows that he's, as you put it, "sick."

There's absolutely no doubt that Rafferty WAS a sick, disgusting and evil human being. But that is absolutely not the point. The point is always the evidence in the abstract. The judge made a discretionary call that the way this evidence came to be in the hands of the police was not lawful, and that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Saying that the justice system should ignore violations of the law (what you call "technicalities") is not the answer. The answer is for investigators to be more circumspect in obeying the law while they are enforcing it. In a free society, that's not that much to ask.

And I'll say again: this outcome is better. I'm not sure why you can't understand that a guilty verdict without the use of evidence that is of questionable admissibility is better than one that uses that evidence and gives the accused another argument on appeal for getting a new trial.
Iowa_Flames_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 11:06 AM   #80
trublmaker
First Line Centre
 
trublmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the belly of the beast.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan View Post
And I'll say again: this outcome is better. I'm not sure why you can't understand that a guilty verdict without the use of evidence that is of questionable admissibility is better than one that uses that evidence and gives the accused another argument on appeal for getting a new trial.

I never ever said anything about one verdict being better than the other. I know the judge didn't want this to come back on an appeal, I'm talking about this ruling saying that what's on a computer found in the course of a legal search warrant can't be used because the contents of the computer are now considered basically a residence. You can use the computer for evidence just not what's on it. I'm glad the jury got it right but again what if they got it wrong because they didn't know everything
trublmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
death penalty , rot in hell

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:28 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021