In September 2006 an investigation was initiated by the Public Prosecutor against a Dutch family that was suspected for dealing narcotics from their place of residence. However the investigation was stopped in October 2009 due to irregularities and mistakes in the approach. One of the reasons was the fact that wiretapped conversations between the suspected and their lawyers ware not destroyed in time. By this failing, sixteen suspected people were released.
The moral dilemma is the following: on one side there is criminal law trying to stop drugs dealing to the maximum by applying strict rules and regulations, on the other hand there is the right of privacy from every individual in our society. This dilemma is counterproductive against the use of drugs.
My personal opinion is that strong evidence, obtained in a reasonable manner, against a human being or organization which has seriously acted against the law, cannot be declared invalid. By these regulations continuing prosecution of such persons or organizations is hampered unnecessarily. Hence solving criminal activities will be obstructed.
An exception on a moral standard will be made when the moral standard is exceeded by a more important, more heavily weighing standard. In this situation to my opinion is drugs dealing a heavier violation of the law than destroying to late eavesdropped conversations. Sometimes the morally wrong thing have to be done to do the best for the society. These evidence must be explained still valid so sixteen criminals get their deserved sentence.
Background article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
These privacy laws are made for every person in the Netherlands, they overlap with moralities such as freedom. It is impossible to change these laws in making a distinction between "normal" people and people who acted against the law (this is also impossible because you have to prove this first).There are policies and procedures to wiretap persons because of a potential criminal activity. If procedures are not respected than the information is illegal and cannot be used as evidence.
s888110
I agree with the author that strong evidence, which is obtained in a reasonable manner, cannot be declared invalid. However, ‘a reasonable manner’ is a very subjective term. This could mean in accordance with the law, morality or another important principle. In the view of utilitarianism, in which the morally right action is the action that brings about the highest possible overall utility, the action to violate the right to privacy of the sixteen suspects, and thus the violation of the moral principle not to violate the law, is justifiable. When the drugs gang is convicted, due to the evidence retrieved of which the method is against law and morality, a very large group of people will no longer be hurt by them. This is an important moral principle and consequently a large group of people will benefit from the conviction of the drugs gang.
s926012
The first comment is too simple. So does it mean that the government has to respect every rule while criminals are bringing drugs on the market, murdering people, raping people ?
So if the government makes a mistake by using illegal gathered information these criminals may return to society ? Just like nothing happened ? I think that the people of the victims will not be happy.
I strongly agree with the writer of the principal comment.
To stop criminal behaviour justice sometimes needs to do illegal things this to prevent harm and even deadly situations. Why do the victims have to suffer a second time ? All of this because of so called ‘mistakes’ of justice ?
Like Robin discussed the utilitarianism is much higher in society than for the criminals.
In my opinion we have to send the criminals the message that justice prevails in the end.
A formal error does not always follow exoneration, some errors can be easily corrected and others can be altered by the court, they can even convict on other minor charges to buy time for new evidence collection. The hermeneutical perspective states that acting against the law is immoral. In this case the OM made significant errors going beyond the limits of the legal system, after which the court is bound by law and not “morality”, from a legal perspective they have to act like this! From a utilitarian perspective it is most likely seen as morally wrong as the overall utility of these criminals to society is lower than if they are “rightfully” convicted. In conclusion, the legal system is in place to ‘protect’ society and its people, it is designed to promote equality and protect freedom, and 9/10 times it correctly convicts criminals.
Post a Comment