fandomhigh | Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #15, Apr 20]

"Welcome to our last class together," Alex said, offering her students a light smile. "I'll be honest: I've really enjoyed our conversations this semester. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about justice, and thank you for your insights and perspectives on all the subjects we've covered. They've been nothing short of fascinating."

She gestured to the stack of papers on her desk. "This, of course, is your final. It's structured just like the midterm was. You can use anything you may have brought with you, but you shouldn't need to. You cannot work with your classmates, and I'll ask that you not talk to one another until all exams have been handed in. Even if you and your friend are both finished, the next person over might not be, and your conversation could be a distraction.

"Once you've handed in your exam, you're free to leave. Or, if you'd rather, you can stick around and tell me what you thought of class -- what I did wrong, what I did right, anything like that. But for now, you've got finals to complete. Good luck, and show me what you know."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A prosecutor conducts an unlawful search of a private residence, in order to obtain information that is key to convicting a dangerous pedophile. The defense argues that the information should be withheld, as the search clearly violated the law. The prosecutor notes that the unlawful search occurred in the victim's home, and not the defendant's, and so the defendant's civil rights have not been compromised. The victim may sue the prosecution in civil court, but the accused lacks standing to object to the search. Should the evidence be admitted? Give one argument for each side.

Bod was glad he'd studied for this exam. It was definitely needed.

The evidence should be submitted if the prosecutor had probable cause to believe that there was evidence within the residence, then it could be argued that it would admissible for that reason. For instance, if the suspect had given information regarding the evidence or someone had seen the victim with said evidence before the victim went inside his private dwelling.

The evidence should not be submitted because homes cannot just be searched on a whim of whomever. If that were legal, it would give way to searches being conducted for no other reason than that the police might not like the look of you one particular day.

It was pretty obvious from Ben's answer that most of his experience was on the prosecution side of the law, as his argument in favor of having the search be admitted was definitely more carefully thought out. It was almost like he'd been trained in how to circumvent the letter of the law in order to serve the spirit...

The defendant's civil rights have not been compromised, but allowing the evidence from an illegal search gives the police too much latitude. If the prosecutor had that much reason to believe there was evidence in a private residence, they should have obtained a legal search warrant, or obtained the permission of the victim. This is a dangerous road to travel down, and not one to be encouraged. Search & Seizure warrants are the to protect everyone, not just the accused.

This sounds like a tort to me: the victim's rights were compromised and the victim has the right to sue the prosecution in a civil court. Therefore, the defendant has no right to speak up about it; it wasn't his civil rights that were violated and he doesn't have just cause to bring the tort to civil trial. Since the way the evidence was found has no legal bearing on the defendant (save for how it can be used in the criminal trial), it should be admissible.

However, the prosecutor acted outside of the law. Laws are set up specifically to protect everyone and no one should be above it. Furthermore, even as happy as the victim might have been with seeing the defendant found guilty, this violation of the victim's civil rights could be just as damaging as the violation committed by the pedophile. Making exceptions for unlawful behavior used to convict a defendant can lead people away from Blackstone's formula very quickly.

On the one hand, the defendant's civil rights weren't technically violated. On the other hand, SOMEONE'S were, and the search was illegal, so the evidence shouldn't be admitted anyways.

Basically, this is a very bad thing that happened, and it's wrong, but whether the evidence can be admitted really depends on how the law is worded.

Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #15, Apr 20]

Question 4: Case Study: Civil Liberties - JST15

Re: Question 4: Case Study: Civil Liberties - JST15

Re: Question 4: Case Study: Civil Liberties - JST15

Re: Question 4: Case Study: Civil Liberties - JST15

Re: Question 4: Case Study: Civil Liberties - JST15

Re: Question 4: Case Study: Civil Liberties - JST15