In this day and age, society is becoming increasingly reliant on computer technologies. The police are no exception to that rule. But what happens when the database gets it wrong? This is what an American journalist, Daniel Nasaw, discusses in this article, which was published in the British newspaper "The Guardian", on Wednesday, 14th January 2009. "The Guardian" is a quality paper which is traditionally considered as liberal, left-wing press. Nasaw is an award-winning political journalist who is now the American correspondent for "The Guardian", based in Washington DC. In this article, entitled "US Supreme Court rules evidence admissible despite police error", Nasaw focuses on a Supreme Court decision on the case of Bennie Dean Herring, a man arrested on an outdated warrant. He also concentrates on the internal divisions in the Supreme Court of the United States, particularly as it is at a turning point, with renewal prospects.
[...] The Supreme Court is at a turning point in its history: President Obama will have the opportunity (and the responsibility) to put an end to this period of uncertainty. Indeed, he is expected to have to nominate a few new justices (some being old or wanting to retire, as Justice Souter, who announced on May 1st 2009 his intention to step down). Knowing President Obama's liberal opinions on big issues like abortion or the death penalty, one can wonder how liberal he will make the Supreme Court? [...]
[...] US Supreme Court rules evidence admissible despite police error In this day and age, society is becoming increasingly reliant on computer technologies. The police is no exception to that rule. But what happens when the database gets it wrong? This is what an American journalist, Daniel Nasaw, discusses in this article, which was published in the British newspaper Guardian”, on Wednesday, 14th January 2009. Guardian” is a quality paper which is traditionally considered as liberal, left-wing press. Nasaw is an award-winning political journalist who is now the American correspondent for Guardian”, based in Washington DC. [...]
[...] The members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, as stated by article two of the Constitution. They hold life tenure, and cannot be removed apart from some very specific cases. This was intended to guarantee the independence of the Court from the political power in place at that moment. In other words, to guarantee the separation of the judicial power (the Supreme Court), and the executive power (the President). [...]
[...] This could happen more and more frequently, since the use of computers by police forces is increasing rapidly. In fact, this Supreme Court ruling helps to establish what a piece of evidence is and that, if genuinely found, with no malice from the police forces, this piece of evidence should not be ignored. The current divisions between the members of the Supreme Court This falls within the tasks of the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country. [...]
[...] The reporter then hints at possible far-reaching consequences of this Supreme Court decision, at a time when the police are using more and more electronic databases. The journalist also tells how the conservative side of the court (which consists in 4 or 5 justices), through Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that an illegal search does not justify throwing out the evidence obtained. He also distinguishes between isolated negligence and real wrongdoing. For the liberal bloc, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that the police should have been more rigorous. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
