Vote totals:
Yes:
0%
No:
100%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
Phone tapping evidence being used in court works in France and Australia
These two countries already use phone tapping substantially as evidence, and their human rights record in terms of convictions and civil rights in the courtroom are relatively good. They have similar legal systems to the UK, so if it works there it is likely to work in the UK, too.
Just because other nations are willing to contravene the human rights of their citizens does not mean that the UK should follow suit. The fact that is has been used elsewhere does not justify the principle of phone tapping.
PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
Phone tapping should not include any calls to lawyers
It is essential, that even if phone calls to lawyers can be used to condemn criminals, they are not used, or even recorded. This is essential to protect the basic rights people have. It would also preserve the value of legal advice, which is key to any legal system. This, however, should only be the case if the lawyer is credible and is not complicit in the crime.
PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
The justice system should protect innocents, not criminals
If phone tapping means that more guilty people will be convicted, thus making the country safer for innocent people, then it should be used. There is already an incredibly low conviction rate for many crimes including rape, so the system needs to be toughened up.
Suspects are innocent until proven guilty; that is a fundamental principle of our legal system. If phone tapping becomes admissable evidence in a court of law then both innocent and guilty people will be subject to this intrusion into their privacy.
This kind of evidence is unlikely to aid the prosecution of crimes like rape which are notoriously difficult to prove. It is unlikely that a rapist will be caught out confessing to his crime through a phone tap.
PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
Phone tapping doesn’t undermine basic rights people have
People still have basic rights to privacy, unless they’re heavily suspected of crimes. There is nothing to suggest that all people will have their phone tapped; presumably the government will only use their resources when there is a real threat to justice or the country’s safety.
Such an activity completely undermines our rights to privacy. It is essential that if we live in a democracy, in the 21st Century, we continue to uphold the basic principles that make our country so great, and free. Unless we fight against governments interfering with phone tapping and surveillance, we will not be doing this. What’s more, once particular practises are accepted, it is easier for the government to implement even more surveillance on the nation.
PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
Phone tapping will be inefficient
Phone tapping already happens so the money is still being spent. At the moment the only difference is that it can’t be used in court.
The amount of money phone tapping costs to install, monitor, and then use in court is not acceptable compared to the good it will actually do to society. In the majority of cases where it will be used, there will be evidence strongly against the criminal anyway, and it is also likely to be used in bureaucratic or fraudulent cases. Surely money should be better spent on getting violent criminals off the streets, or improving education, rather than dealing with this aspect of crime?
PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
Securities we have in the UK are ignored
It is essential that if we live in a democracy, in the 21st Century, we continue to uphold the basic principles that make our country so great, and free. Such an activity completely undermines our rights to privacy. Unless we fight against governments interfering with phone tapping and surveillance, we will not be doing this. What’s more, once particular practises are accepted, it is easier for the government to implement even more surveillance on the nation.
PHONE TAPPING SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
Such evidence is by definition prejudicial
Court’s have a duty under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to exclude evidence that is unduly prejudicial to the defendant. This evidence is by definition prejudicial; a defendant cannot adduce evidence to prove or counteract recorded telephone conversations – all they can do is argue that the evidence has been presented out of context by the prosecution. This is a weak line of defence and will look very weak in front of a jury.
