If a person had good reason to believe that a violent crime was happening at his neighbour’s house then breaking in to the neighbour’s house would be justified. And even though they trespassed their testimony should be admissible in court.
If, on the other hand, a person broke in to their neighbour’s house without a good reason and discovered some crime their testimony should be admissible in court and they should receive the punishment for trespassing/breaking and entering.
That’s all pretty straight forward and I expect everyone agrees… now what if the person trespassing/breaking and entering is working for the government?
What happens is that government employees are not prosecuted and their discovery is not admissible in court (e.g the Tohoe spying). This accepted procedure enables two injustices.
All evidence should be allowed in Court and crimes committed by government employees should be prosecuted.
I disagree. Because government is the institutionalization of force, we have to be extremely careful about the procedures associated with its use.
I can envision a situation where black operations cells spring up that involve breaking and entering to get convictions, and, when caught, these agents merely get a slap on the wrist to appease the public, followed by bonuses and promotions under pretexts.
In other words, it’s a conflict of interest.
I think this could make for an interesting discussion.
Syndicated:
http://tdj.transegoism.us/good-for-the-goose/
If I access someone’s computer without their consent I’m liable for up to 2 years imprisonment. If a government employee does it illegally as part of their job they get no punishment and any evidence collected is inadmissible in court.
I’m not saying government employees should violate the law. I’m saying punish the employee with the same punishment anyone else would get and allow the evidence to be used in court.
Ah, but there are. There are citizens and servants. Government workers are supposed to be servants of the citizenry. These servants are paid by the public to perform very specific duties in a very specific manner. They must not stray from these prescribed methods because, unlike the citizenry, they are agents of an institution of force — the only such institution which should be tolerated by civilized society — a constitutionally limited government designed for the sole purpose of safeguarding individual freedom by prosecuting the initiators of force — they must not themselves initiate force; the moment they do, the institution which they represent becomes a tyranny.
For this reason, I think it is entirely justifiable to assert additional limitations upon public servants if doing so is necessary to prevent it from becoming an institution which initiates the use of force.
And trespassing amounts to the initiation of force.
Hmm… I shouldn’t try to discuss the same topic with the same person in two places.
My point was there are no special people – i.e. justice is the same for everyone including government employees. And I agree that there are extra obligations on government employees.
Employees are bound by their contracts.
It’s a different topic but there is nothing wrong with security guards, private investigators, citizens arresting people or private prosecutions.
I agree.
Do you agree with me that to prohibit relevant evidence from being used is to obstruct justice?
“Hmm… I shouldn’t try to discuss the same topic with the same person in two places.”
No problem. I’ll just add this conversation as an update to the post on my site, once I’m satisfied that the conversation has run its course.
“My point was there are no special people – i.e. justice is the same for everyone including government employees. And I agree that there are extra obligations on government employees.”
Well, I think it goes without saying that government employees should be charged with trespassing if they invade property without a warrant or probable cause. The fact that they don’t is a travesty.
But in order to prevent systemic misbehavior on the part of public servants, I think you have to, insofar as possible, remove the incentive to misbehave. And admitting evidence acquired illegally, along with a system that would be willing to more or less look the other way to get convictions is a major incentive.
“Employees are bound by their contracts.”
Exactly. And government employees all the more so, since they are agents of institutionalized force.
“It’s a different topic but there is nothing wrong with security guards, private investigators, citizens arresting people or private prosecutions.”
In the case of security guards, their function is not to exercise force, but observe, and prevent and respond to the initiation of force in order to protect someone’s private property. Their job mandate is an extension of the property owner’s right to self defense. They have a distinctly passive function.
In the case of PIs, their job is not to exercise force, but to conduct an investigation that may establish an individual as a suspect; they themselves are not to apprehend the suspect, but merely to create a case for the police to apprehend a suspect if their employer is not satisfied with the extent of a police investigation; and they also collect evidence to enhance the case of a prosecutor, or simply gather information through privately legal means — particularly in cases where a formal police investigation is not justified (e.g., infidelity).
Citizens can make arrests if they see criminal wrongdoing, however, their rights do not extend past that of a police man’s, and they certainly are not warranted to invade someone’s property to search for evidence (which the police can do if they get a warrant) — the only time that is legally justifiable is if they have reason to believe that there is a crime which is immediately ongoing.
“I agree.
Do you agree with me that to prohibit relevant evidence from being used is to obstruct justice?”
Not if doing so is necessary to prevent a conflict of interest within the government which could lure it into tyrannical practices.
Preventing tyranny takes precedence over prosecuting any particular crime.
Do we really have to accept either :- 1) prohibiting relevant evidence in court; or, 2) government tyranny?
I think this is a false choice, you are arguing for the lesser of two evils (and in practice we end up getting both evils).
There are two propositions in my original post:-
1) All evidence should be allowed in Court; and,
2) crimes committed by government employees should be prosecuted.
If these two things are done then it doesn’t enable government tyranny.
“I think this is a false choice, you are arguing for the lesser of two evils (and in practice we end up getting both evils).”
No, it’s not a false choice. Allowing evidence collected illegally is an incentive to illegally collect evidence.
The only way it wouldn’t be is if the peace officer was banned from any kind of government service as PART of a minimum punishment for collecting evidence illegally. And I don’t think that’s going to happen.
What WILL happen is that police departments will be court ordered to reprimand and suspend cops who do this, and then when they come back to the force, they’ll find themselves on the fast-track for showing initiative.
Police departments want to get convictions. If you let them get away with collecting evidence illegally without serious, PERMANENT consequences, then they will do it.
If government employees were sufficiently punished for acting illegally then it would be wrong to prohibit relevant evidence.
Agree?
IMO to prohibit relevant evidence of an offender’s guilt is to do an injustice to the victim.
And saving the planet takes precedence over any individual’s rights.
I needed to refresh your page times to view this page for some reason, however, the information here ended up being worth the hold out.
“If government employees were sufficiently punished for acting illegally then it would be wrong to prohibit relevant evidence.
Agree?”
Only if by “sufficiently punished” you mean permanently banned from any kind of government service AS A MINIMUM. And, of course, it goes without saying that if the cop was found to be otherwise compensated for the crime by any public or private property, then both he and compensator would be guilty of fraud and conspiracy. And would have to do serious jail time (at least 5 years, no parole).
“IMO to prohibit relevant evidence of an offender’s guilt is to do an injustice to the victim.”
And what I’m saying is that what you are suggesting is, potentially, a trojan horse.
“And saving the planet takes precedence over any individual’s rights.”
Since when are those two things ever in conflict?
I don’t disagree with that… however having a police force provides opportunity for tyranny but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong to have a police force.
Try this one… Preventing child poverty takes precedence over property rights.
It’s the same rationale as “Preventing tyranny takes precedence over prosecuting any particular crime.”
As an aside how do you feel about drafting people into the army if it is to prevent tyranny?
“I don’t disagree with that… however having a police force provides opportunity for tyranny but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong to have a police force.”
Well, true. In any case, preventing tyranny requires… -ahem- eternal vigilance.
Still, when in doubt, I always side with limiting government. I am confident in my ability to protect my family, my property, and myself (and yes, in that order — I will risk my life for my property, just on principle — ’cause f^ck the thugs).
“Try this one… Preventing child poverty takes precedence over property rights.”
At the risk of coming across as a heartless bastard, no it doesn’t.
Dickens can suck it.
“As an aside how do you feel about drafting people into the army if it is to prevent tyranny?”
Ayn Rand put it best: “A government that is unable to convince people to willingly defend it does not deserve to exist.”
Well, my comment is “still awaiting moderation.” Probably because of the thinly veiled obscenities within it. Sooooo….. Copy and paste and remove the offending language.
“I don’t disagree with that… however having a police force provides opportunity for tyranny but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong to have a police force.”
Well, true. In any case, preventing tyranny requires… -ahem- eternal vigilance.
Still, when in doubt, I always side with limiting government. I am confident in my ability to protect my family, my property, and myself (and yes, in that order — I will risk my life for my property, just on principle — ’cause **** the thugs).
“Try this one… Preventing child poverty takes precedence over property rights.”
At the risk of coming across as a heartless bastard, no it doesn’t.
Dickens can **** it.
“As an aside how do you feel about drafting people into the army if it is to prevent tyranny?”
Ayn Rand put it best: “A government that is unable to convince people to willingly defend it does not deserve to exist.”
What?! STILL “awaiting moderation?!”
What is this?
As I see it this is your principle…
A wrong should be done if it averts a greater bad.
… and as I see it this is your position…
Obstructing justice (a wrong) should be done if it averts tyranny (a greater bad).
This is the same principle that your oppressors use…
Indiscriminate trespassing (a wrong) should be done if it averts terrorism (a greater bad).
Taking away property rights (a wrong) should be done if it averts global warming (a greater bad).
Taking wealth (a wrong) should be done if it averts child poverty (a greater bad).
Well, no.
You see, by not allowing evidence acquired by public servants via illegal means, I am not obstructing justice, but rather addressing a separate injustice — the wrong doing of the public servant.
Now, as I said before, if we were able to, as an absolute minimum punishment, ban individuals from any kind of government service should they be found guilty of acquiring evidence through illicit means, then by all means allow it.
But otherwise, an act of tyranny is a separate, and, incidentally, (in the principle of the political model) greater (as is it prior in the order of justice administration to private crimes), injustice from the other criminal act in question.
While the government has the responsibility to investigate crimes, apprehend suspects under warrant, and prosecute them, the government has a separate (and greater) responsibility to not itself break the law. The act of trespassing, as you’ve pointed out, is a separate crime. The prosecution of this crime precludes the contemplation of what may be considered a reward for the action, as the action is criminal. As the act is committed with the motive of achieving a conviction, using any evidence acquired by these means amounts to a reward, as it satisfies the motive of the crime, and is thus, not merely a reward for bad behavior, but actually amounts to an existential incentive to unofficially institutionalize the practice. Therefore, if we are to accept evidence under these circumstances, the punishment for the crime of acting under color of law in cases such as these must so severe as to render these acts unconscionable to any career-conscious public servant. I feel that only a complete and permanent ban from any government service is the bare minimum to ensure that this requirement is satisfied.
Sorry about the time taken to reply…
There are four possible scenarios…
1. Government employees sufficiently prosecuted for illegal acts and their evidence is allowed in court. In this scenario there are no injustices.
2. Government employees sufficiently prosecuted for illegal acts and their evidence is prohibited from court. This is unjust in one aspect – when seeking justice it would be wrong to prohibit relevant evidence.
3. Government employees not sufficiently prosecuted for illegal acts and their evidence is allowed in court. This is unjust only in that the government employee is not punished – there is no injustice in having truthful evidence used in court.
4. Government employees not sufficiently prosecuted for illegal acts and their evidence is prohibited from court. This is unjust in both aspects mentioned above.
Scenario 1 is what I’m advocating because it is right.
Which scenario do you think is right?
Which do you advocate?