Bubble Trumps
So, I'm listening to the news this morning as I get ready for work, as I am apt to do from time to time. One of the stories that caught my ear was about a court decision in Washington that demanded a new trial for a 17 year old boy convicted of second-degree robbery. The story goes that boy had called a female friend whose mother happened to be eavesdropping on her daughter's conversation. Over hearing and taking notes on the conversation, in which the alleged thief admitted to knowing where the purse was, the mother was able to give testimony that helped convict this little punk.
The thing that irritates me about this isn't the fact that the privacy laws in Washington don't allow parents to keep tabs on their kids, but the fact that the kid gets another trial. Ok, so the mom did something illegal by eavesdropping on her daughter's conversation. That does not; in anyway, change the fact that the little bastard did it. As I see it, the mother provided good, accurate information that proved the case. Yippee for her. Now she did something wrong, how does that change things in the case? Maybe she should be appropriately punished for doing something illegal, but I find it difficult to see how it invalidates her testimony.
It's these fucking technicalities that drive me nuts. I know they were put there for a reason, but it seems that they're used more for evil than good. If someone did the crime, then they did the crime and should pay accordingly. If someone did something improper in collecting evidence or slipped on some protocol then they should be punished for doing that. I'm sure in some cases it makes the evidence questionable, but to blanket apply seems both inefficient and self-defeating. I mean if cops, serving a drug warrant, accidentally break into my house instead and finds four pounds of marijuana, then I should get arrested and punished for that…I did something wrong.
Eh, what a world.