Like this, but brown.
Okay, this is an interesting topic, and I'll take it one at a time.
Bad motives and bad reasoning are a causes to suspect the outcome of an argument is faulty, and a good cause to investigate it further. But it doesn't always mean that the outcome is faulty. For example, if I say, 2x is always equal to x2, 22=4, therefore 2(2)=4, my reasoning was wrong, but my outcome was right.
I think a person has the right to refuse treatment based on this problem. It could be a moral issue for them. But I don't think that medicine should ignore that data. Yes, using the data may inspire further depravities, but there are other ways of deterring them.
The difference between this and the previous is that medicine need not be built on integrity (integrity is good, but not necessary to save lives), but any fair system of justice must be. What we call "off on a technicality" is the only way some innocent people get off, because those technicalities exist so that biased human beings don't circumvent justice when they think they are 100% sure that someone is guilty but still happen to be wrong.
You can have a personal opinion about the origin of a food, but you don't really have a personal opinion about whether that food tastes good to you or not - that's just a fact. If I consumed what I later found out to be dog feces, but it tasted good to me, I might never eat it again because I found it unhealthy or socially unwise, but a statement of "I don't like the taste of dog feces" would be false.
There might be many reasons why the origin of food might make you reject it. If a vegetarian ate something they later found out was meat, they might readily admit they enjoyed the experience, but thought it was unhealthy or unethical to eat it. Most people would likely feel the same way about cannibalism.
Treating a child badly for any of these reasons seems morally wrong. Nothing about any of these reasons are something that the child did, so it would be no different than treating a child as a piece of property simply because they were black.
Treating them differently, on the other hand, is a different matter. Some of those things might cause you to react differently toward a child for practical purposes.
Depends on what you want the Chevvy first. If it is for all practical purposes identical to the original chevvy, then if all you wanted was the performance of one, then it would be unwise to reject it. If you wanted it to say, "I am a collector of cars produced in X years" then it would be perfectly reasonable.
Sexual experiences are intensely personal things, even one-night-stands. When I have sex, one of the best parts of it is the pleasure I give to the other party. So if I found out later that the other person was morally objectionable in my book, part of the experience would be ruined. That doesn't include trans-people for me, so it would be a no-harm/no-foul sort of situation. But a vegetarian who feels the same way I do who later found out that they slept with a meat-eater might have it ruined, because they enjoyed a personal, pleasurable experience with someone they rather would not have. Ditto with people who have a moral objection to transsexuals sleeping with someone they later found out was trans.
edited 2nd Jun '12 1:16:47 PM by Vericrat
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
More to the point, doctors aren't going to have time to discuss with every patient the experimental origins of the treatment they're using, especially urgent treatments, and it shouldn't be that big a priority anyway. It's all Guilt by Association.
The collection of evidence through less than legal means pretty much ruins the credibility of the evidence. IT doesn't matter if the accused is innocent, evidence not collected the right way is dismissed from court proceedings. The the people who did it wrong often are punished, depending on the exact circumstances.
It's already in our law system that stuff happens.
Like this, but brown.
@Ace Of Spades: Yeah, but I think Matt is arguing that it shouldn't be.
Yeah, I knew what he meant. But the whole point of all those "technicalities" that require that tainted evidence be suppressed exist because tainted evidence by its very nature circumvents how justice is supposed to work. If we say we've achieved justice against a guilty person by using unjust means, we sink to their level. Further, almost any way evidence might be tainted does suggest a lack of credibility.
WRT the medicine issue, all I meant was that a patient who knew that a treatment was based on horrific experimentation, I wouldn't cast judgment on them if they refused the treatment based on that. I realize that "based on" is a very complicated notion in medicine, so it would be very difficult for an individual to make that call anyway, but if they did, I'd be understanding.
edited 2nd Jun '12 1:40:47 PM by Vericrat
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
edited 2nd Jun '12 2:01:19 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
That's more like "good motive, bad reasoning".
We have a standard we need to hold ourselves up to. If we sink below that, we're little more than criminals ourselves, going backwards to the kind of time where any man could be accused of anything and be condemned with little evidence.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
So, accepting evidence that happened to be obtained through unlawful means, even if the cop who resorted to that was already punished, will inevitably lead to anyone being convicted without evidence? Slippery Slope Fallacy much?
It's not going to be "justice" either way. If the obvious answer to what to do doesn't fit within the framework, then it's the framework that's flawed.
EDITED IN: Look at it this way. If a murderer had a gun and bullets matched with the victims in his/her home, then the questionable methods of the cop who found it has no bearing on whether or not the murderer should be put away.
edited 2nd Jun '12 2:08:43 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
This is a slippery slope than can actually happen, though, because it's something that our people did in the past. We have enough trouble with convicting people on faulty evidence as it is.
The framework is fine. If all we can find is faulty evidence through questionable methods, there's an actual fucking chance the accused is innocent.
Flying Dutchman
If, say, a traditional Objectivist started advocating for a socialistic welfare state while still obviously being an Objectivist who doesn't like the idea, I would not question the wisdom of doing such a thing, but I would question the wisdom of possibly allowing that person a hand in implementing such a thing. As an example, of course.
I sense that 99% of the "science" performed by Nazi Germany (or Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy) that required doing terribly unethical and horrible things would not yield data particularly useful in any modern, non-terrible context. I suppose if we thought it could, though, we could always attempt to replicate the data in an ethical manner; if it cannot be corroborated (without doing horrible things), however, it's not terribly useful either way.
I think that this is context-sensitive.
Sometimes, this is justified. If someone served me chocolate-covered maggots and they were otherwise very tasty (disclaimer: I do not know what maggots taste like), but I did not know what they were before I was told, I may reject them out of simple psychological associations. Something petty, like rejecting something because its recipe is slightly different (in an innocuous way), seems very unrealistic, however. I have not seen anyone do that in real life, at least.
There is no justification for any of this.
Likewise, I see no reason that this is justified, but I feel that it is too miniscule and uncommon of an issue to worry about.
This particular line of reasoning, given the statistical unlikelihood of one actually having a one-night stand with a transsexual, seems to simply be a justification of transphobia (and, possibly, homophobia). My personal feelings on the issue—i.e. "how would I react personally if this actually happened to me"—are mixed.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
@Matt: The reason why we have laws making us throw out incorrectly gathered evidence is to cut down on the ability to falsify evidence.
Okay, so what if the defendant claims that the gun and bullets were planted there? If the cop didn't follow procedure, he has no way of proving that it was actually collected at the defendant's home.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
I see the Awesomeness.
Agree with post 2. I'm not really sure what you mean about it not making sense. If it's the truth, it doesn't matter who says it.
Fight smart, not fair.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
As opposed to if he did?
Like this, but brown.
Yeah, he has the word of an officer that went through the channels of obtaining a warrant based on probable cause instead of that of a common criminal who broke into someone's house.
At any rate, the justice system is built on being fundamentally fair. It counts its own integrity as being worth more than occasionally letting people off for things they did, because nobody would trust a justice system that convicted based off tainted evidence.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
@Matt: If the cop arrested a guy and suspected that there was evidence to be found, he'd go before a judge, get a warrant, and they'd send in a team. The team would follow procedures designed to document everything that happens when they process a crime scene, so as to have proof that they're not tampering with the evidence. It's a huge multi-step process designed to provide accountability and proof of integrity at every step.
If a lone cop unlawfully enters some guy's house, and brings out a bag of bullets, there's none of that. There isn't a team that watched him to make sure he didn't mess it up, there isn't any documentation of the process he used to gather the evidence, there's no chain of custody to prove that nobody tampered with it, and so on. For all we know, the cop could have carried the evidence into the crime scene and claimed to have found it there, because he ignored protocol for not contaminating a crime scene. And reasonable doubt is enough to acquit someone.
edited 3rd Jun '12 2:43:09 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Evidence gathered without a warrant in a situation that requires one is inadmissable in court. DG is correct.
The entire reason for rules like that are to protect people from being falsely imprisoned on the grounds of circumstantial evidence, even if it means it lets some people get off when they committed a crime.
When a crime scene is found, great care is taken to make sure it is not contaminated. It's why as a patrol officer you're told that if you stumble upon a crime scene, you are not to touch anything unless in the pursuit of catching the person responsible, or coming to the aid of someone who is in danger of death or severe injury, as well as to defend yourself.
Probable cause of a felony is like an automatic warrant, but it's risky. It means that if you think someone is being killed inside, you have every right to kick the door in and beat the shit out of the guy involved and arrest him. However, if you are wrong, you just unlawfully entered someone elses home. You'll be reprimanded for sure, and could possibly be fired if the person involved presses charges.
So if I'm doing a traffic stop, and the guy is acting shifty and I see blood smeared on the lid of the trunk, I can ask him what the blood is all about, and use that as probable cause to detain (Note, detaining is not arresting) him and force him to let me look inside his trunk.
If it looks bad, but isn't bad, odds are you'll get off ok because the probable cause, while incorrect, was understandable.
Let me know if y'all have any LE questions, and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Note though, most of my civilian law experience comes from the things the military has in common with civil LE, and the fact that I'm from an LAPD family. In my world, warrants are toilet paper, because on a federal installation we own you, and do not need warrants. By entering a military base you are automatically giving consent for me to search your vehicle, person, or property, with no requirement for a warrant. I do have to be able to justify my actions however.
The short version is basically this: There's an ironclad rule for not accepting incorrectly acquired evidence, because of the chance that said evidence could be planted or disingenuous. The justice system doesn't bend the rules just because they look at evidence that is tainted and know it's actually true. The reason is because if the justice system set a precedent for accepting this kind of evidence, then cops would theoretically do whatever they felt was necessary for a conviction, without worrying about all that warrant nonsense, since they feel they would be vindicated in the end.
edited 3rd Jun '12 3:04:55 PM by Barkey
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
edited 3rd Jun '12 4:12:42 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
^
The chance of a team of people keeping a secret like that is much lower than an individual keeping a secret like that. Believe it or not, lots of cops have integrity. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but procedures involving photography at the scene as well as the chain of custody exist to make it a serious pain in the ass to tamper with or plant evidence, as well as to trip up people who try.
If gathering evidence incorrectly(Without malicious intent) resulted in charges, cops wouldn't ever want to do their damn jobs. There's a reason cops receive a certain degree of legal protection such as Graham versus Connor AKA objective reasonableness, it's so they aren't scared to perform their duties, for fear of making a mistake and ruining their own lives. It's a very important principle in Law Enforcement.
edited 3rd Jun '12 4:16:34 PM by Barkey
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Well, I get that lots of cops are good people, but a lot of times a whole group of people can be quite convinced that the ends justify the means... various kinds of activists come to mind. This mentality needs to be deterred, of course, but having an "iron-clad" rule about not accepting any evidence that happened to be improperly gathered, even if there is no apparent reason for that particular improper procedure to imply it was planted, doesn't seem like the right way to go about it.
EDITED IN: And bear in mind that with regards to "improperly" I support the same benefit of a doubt applied to other crimes. My point is that if we know that a clearly improper procedure was involved, one that definitely needs to be deterred, it seems a more fitting deterrent to punish the individual doing that, rather than refusing to accept the evidence that happened to come from that.
edited 3rd Jun '12 4:19:20 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
It's about precedent. If improperly gathered evidence starts to get accepted in the courts, cops will be more likely to improperly gather evidence instead of going through the pain in the ass procedures, which leads to corruption.
That's the entire point of that rule. By not setting that precedent, you are showing that the end does not justify the means where the court system is concerned, the active precedent is set that you either do things the right way, or you get in trouble when keystone evidence gets thrown out of a trial because you decided to play fast and loose with the rules. It's the single best way to reinforce that it is never ok to gather evidence on your own terms, outside of the law.
Punishing the cop but using the evidence anyway is a dumb thing to do. If I break into a crime lords house and get key evidence showing his guilt, and LE has been trying to put this guy away for years and coming up empty, how is my department going to feel punishing me? Chief is going to want to give me a promotion, not fire or suspend me, much less have me put in jail. Doing that results in a vibrantly clear conflict of interest between law enforcement and the law. The entire point is that the end does not ever justify the means in law enforcement, and to stay as faaaaar away from situations where it might.
What if the FBI tells me "Hey, if you go into this guys house without a warrant and gather this evidence so we can prosecute you, we'll make sure you don't do any jail time, and then we'll sign you on as an agent." Can you imagine the scandal? Letting police officers play the sacrificial lamb to get a court case successfully prosecuted isn't an option.
edited 3rd Jun '12 4:23:17 PM by Barkey
Street Writing Man
I'm going to side completely with Barkey on this one. One thing most Americans let slip their minds is; police officers already have a huge amount of authority and discretion as compared to the common citizen...and they need to, to do their jobs.
Because of this, even approaching an "ends justify means" mindset is very dangerous, as much as Hollywood tries to glorify it. Everyone think a moment; would you really want a cop like Dirty Harry working in your town?
Not to say that chain-of-evidence procedures couldn't use some tinkering...but the principle is a cornerstone of living in a just society. Without it, your freedom is at the mercy of whatever police officer is the least moral.
Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! makes for fine fiction, but the reality of it is far more unpleasant than we want to believe.
edited 3rd Jun '12 6:10:59 PM by drunkscriblerian
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
Flying Dutchman
It is much more useful for politics than it is for police officers, I'm afraid.
I have come to agree with the idea that it would be bad for police to accept faulty evidence, however. Less because I believe it would be bad if the person really was guilty—say, OJ Simpson—but rather because it sets a negative precedent one cannot allow.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
I would think the FBI would rather pull whatever strings to get you a warrant in the first place than to get you out of a mess they created. Granted, though, I don't know much about the specifics of how the system works.
And if the evidence they find while unlawfully searching your stuff says you're the killer? Or the evidence was planted somehow during this illegal search? Just because the police think you look guilty but can't otherwise find actual evidence?
@Matt: See, if Scorpio was in town, and they searched your property, you'd have a high chance of getting shot on accident, because when cops are searching a place where they think a suspect is, and they have good reason to believe the suspect is armed and dangerous, they go in with guns drawn.
If you wake up in the middle of the night, to cops kicking your front door down, you're going to assume it's thieves and react accordingly.
You confront the cops angrily, trying to look threatening, and the cops see a dark figure that's menacingly bearing down on them. They assume you're Scorpio and shoot.
See how that's a bad thing?
Edit: In before, "That doesn't happen". Because it does.
edited 4th Jun '12 1:12:33 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Retroactively rejecting someone or something because of their origin, regardless of their current property. Sometimes it makes sense, other times it doesn't, but which is which?
That's all the examples I can think of right now. So, when is it okay, when isn't it?
edited 4th May '12 4:54:42 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.