(This is my ongoing series presenting pieces that I am formulating into my own constitution for any future country [including LL]. The wording is not set and is open to changes/additions/subtractions. Posting about it is just to stimulate debate, as should any good creator of a constitution.)
"Illegally Obtained Evidence
Any evidence obtained illegally is still useable as evidence. However the persons who used illegal means of obtaining the evidence shall also be charged with the whatever illegal activity they did to obtain the evidence."
This is kind of a two-parter that will go along with a separate post about how audio/videotaping will use the above premise. I tried to use AI to estimate how many countries allow for admission of evidence that was illegally obtained, and it didn’t want to give me any sort of numbers. But there are definitely countries that lean more towards NOT admitting illegally obtained evidence (USA, Scotland) and those that will consider each piece of evidence uniquely (Canada, Australia, New Zealand).
For those countries (or smaller jurisdictions) that do frequently consider evidence that was obtained illegally, AI pretty much always included a version of the following:
“… permit use of unlawfully obtained evidence where excluding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or where the violation is less serious compared to the societal interest in prosecution.”
Or “courts may admit illegally obtained evidence if the desirability of admitting it outweighs the undesirability of how it was obtained, particularly in serious cases.”
Or “judges assess whether admitting such evidence would compromise the overall fairness of the trial or violate fundamental rights”
So the difference in what I am proposing, to nearly every other country, is that illegally obtained evidence is ALWAYS useable in court, if it is legitimate, of course. And the person who used illegal means to get it is ALWAYS tried and punished for their illegal acts if they can be caught. If anyone can think of any situations where this would not work, please let us know.
Imho, these types of laws (throwing out illegally obtained evidence, etc) are put on the books by crooked politicians who are afraid of someone videotaping their private conversations. EVERY HUMAN ON EARTH SHOULD BE ACTING AS IF THEY ARE BEING RECORDED AT ALL TIMES. This is the only way we will progress from where we are currently at with criminals running rampant, and politicians not caring at all about the will of the people.
As we will see when I post about illegal audio/videotaping, I will have some sort of clause there that the penalty for illegal taping shall always be less than that for commiting any form of violence. Usually when I see someone commenting about inequality in the justice system it is often about how serious crime X got less of a penalty than petty crime Z, so I figured it might be a good way to determine penalties is to describe (in constitution) how one should be less or more than the other. The entire spectrum of crimes could be mapped out this way. Still a work in progress tho.