[M2Ys4U]

> So, if someone is standing trial for murder and it turns out the evidence against them was collected illegally, they will end up getting away with it even if everyone knows they did it.

That very much depends on jurisdiction; don't assume that American laws and norms are universal, nor that they are the best way of doing things.

[endtime]

Rule of law and due process are the best way of doing things, and are not exclusively American concepts.

[freeone3000]

Absolutely, but, Canadian law would absolutely allow illegally-collected evidence. The trial against the officer invading the defendant's privacy is a separate matter; the goal of a trial is to determine the truth of matters, after all, and if the defendant did kill someone, all evidence to support (or refute) that is generally admissible.

[didibus]

This makes so much more sense lol. I think this is a good example of people accepting certain things at face value and never stop to think about it.

[msla]

So what makes the state follow the rules of evidence? Anything?

[google234123]

From what I can tell, Canada is somewhere in between complete exclusionary and inclusionary rules wrt illegally obtained evidence.

[endtime]

Nitpicking the details of the example isn't really a reputation of the more general point, though.

[freeone3000]

The details are the entire thing! The principles that we should have fair trials due process are followed, but, you end up with wildly different conclusions.

[geodel]

Well, best way would be to do things my way.