undefined | Better HN

0 pointsXylakant12y ago0 comments

There was a kidnapping case in germany where the police was absolutely certain that the suspect was the right one and that the only way to save the kidnapping victim (a bankers eleven year old son) was to torture the suspect. The suspect then admitted the kidnapping, but the victim had been killed shortly after the actual kidnapping.

One of the fundamentals of the german law systems was broken, by a well-meaning person for practically no gain. The kidnapper later sued the police for the torture and won.

Now germany doesn't have a fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine so the conviction for the kidnapping later was based partially on the information gained in that one interrogation, but what if the kidnapper would walk free because of such a breach of law?

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entf%C3%BChrung_von_Jakob_von_M... (sorry, german only)

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

rayiner12y ago· 1 in thread

> The kidnapper later sued the police for the torture and won. > but what if the kidnapper would walk free because of such a breach of law?

In the U.S., a kidnapper walking free for something like this would result in a nationwide popular movement to insulate police departments from being sued for torturing suspects.

aestra12y ago

No way, wouldn't ever happen. In the US this is called a coerced confession and it is inadmissible in court as evidence, as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Mississippi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi

The confession would never be allowed, however if there were other evidence to implicate him, such as blood in his house, that would certainly still be admissible in court and enough to convict him. If however, there was no other evidence AT ALL, than he walks free, and he gets to sue to police.

There wouldn't ever be a movement to stop police from torturing suspects. This is generally frowned upon, even if they are guilty.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse