Do you think it's appropriate that our court system is based on an adversarial spectacle; a verbal fight between lawyers - the outcome depending on who won the debate, in the jury's opinion; rather than on a persistent search for the truth? Or sometimes the outcome depends on 'technicalities' that don't make much sense. At least that's the way I think it often plays out.
If a case is thrown out because police violated someone's legal rights to obtain what would otherwise be valid evidence, is justice being done? It seems to me that in such a case it would make sense if 1) the police were penalised and 2) the evidence was presented.
Or does it make sense that either 'side' may conceal inconvenient evidence that's in their possession, even if it allows an actual injustice to occur?
If a case is thrown out because police violated someone's legal rights to obtain what would otherwise be valid evidence, is justice being done? It seems to me that in such a case it would make sense if 1) the police were penalised and 2) the evidence was presented.
Or does it make sense that either 'side' may conceal inconvenient evidence that's in their possession, even if it allows an actual injustice to occur?