[bbcbasic]

That would encourage police to gather evidence illegally all the time, because it works. Which is consider a worse state of affairs than guilty people going free.

Just imagine undercover police walking into every home that left their door unlocked and having a snoop around. They could do that and get some convictions out of it.

[xorcist]

No. That does not follow at all. What it means is that the undercover police illegally collecting evidence is convicted, _and_ the child pornographer is convicted.

[sanswork]

How do you trust the evidence of someone who you can prove(to the point of conviction) is willing to do illegal things to gather the evidence?

[gpm]

It's still evidence, just less credible evidence. Hopefully the prosecutor has other evidence as well.

It could also be the case that it's evidence that was collected by someone who didn't commit the crime, but would currently be excluded by the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.

[sanswork]

The only proof you have that it IS evidence is the word of someone who you know is willing to break the rules to secure a conviction.

[dagw]

Sure, and that is an argument you can make in court after the evidence has been submitted.

[hasenj]

I thought an evidence was an objective piece of data, not someone's word.

[bzbarsky]

An objective piece of data like what? A digital photo? A network traffic log? A printed photograph? A phone call recording?

These are _all_ based on someone's word, in a world of Photoshop, text editors, hex editors, scanners and printers, voice synthesis, etc.

[xorcist]

The credibility of the police is usually not the main basis of assessing evidence. It's not really that often that the authenticity of evidence is called into question at all. But sure, it could happend.

[sanswork]

We are talking about them breaking the law. The reason there credibility usually isn't questioned is because they know that if they do that the evidence will be rejected so they are compelled to be honest. Once that is out why wouldn't they be questioned they are proving a willingness to do something illegal to get a conviction. Manufacturing evidence isn't unbelievable at that point.

[bbcbasic]

The evidence is the evidence. A criminal is a criminal. Someone up this chain of thread was making that point.

[SerLava]

Evidence is not the evidence. It can be faked.

When you gather evidence illegally, it's easier to fake it.

[denzil_correa]

And illegal is illegal. The investigation agencies have to make their case within the bounds of the law, they are not above it.

[jankydoodle]

Yeah, meanwhile, you're going to have cases where you sent someone to prison(or perhaps killed them) and have absolutely no reason to believe the verdict was undeserved. Everyone thinks that the court cases will go like this.

Judge: Did you obtain this evidence illegally? Prosecution: Yes we did, your honor. Judge: Okay, trial on that starts Monday.

No...you'll have to legally make it so the exclusionary rule is not a defense...i.e, the number of times that this is even brought up will inevitably diminish to 0. Admittedly, it does exist, but the legal system tries it damnest to remove gray areas. At the very least, you will need a legal test to prove that the evidence was not manufactured. You know of any?

[bbcbasic]

I don't see that happening. Maybe just the child pornographer and 10 innocent black men.