This is crazy. It's not being recorded when you're on a call that makes call centers horrible, it's how you're treated the rest of the time. It's the parts where when you're not on a call you've got supervisors getting upset. It's when you acknowledge the person you're talking to is a human being with better things to do and get yelled at for not selling hard enough that makes it horrible. These things do not translate into recording the police.

Not actually true. There are a couple medications that have very different effects if you drink a lot of water or are dehydrated.

I agree with your point, just thought I'd point that out.

The CEO shouldn't have to step down. But if he's a good CEO who cares about the company's profits he might. And if the board is all about profits they might put pressure on him to do so. It's not good or right, but the point of a CEO and board is to maintain company profits. Customers leaving because of them is exactly the opposite of what they're trying to do.

Hmm. I think I finally see what you mean. I don't exactly agree, but you do have a point.

If the guy comes out and it's obvious enough that he's injured that the evidence would be thrown out and none of the police will name who did it, it's pretty bloody obvious that the entire department should be held in contempt.

How could there possibly not be enough to convict an officer (or officers)? Either they beat him or they didn't. If there is enough evidence to say that the police violated his rights and whatever was gathered by this action should be thrown out, how can there not be enough evidence that the police violated his rights and should be charged?

Arg. I agree with your goals, but you're still jumping to conclusions. Maybe there would be some martyr cops. But right now there are cops like that! They break the rules, and if they're caught all that happens is their case can't go forward. Maybe if there were some personal repercussions we could cut down on this shit. And where are you drawing this idea that more people will be harassed come from? Like I said, we already have cops who ignore the rules. Hell, the way things are right now, an officer can harass people _more_, since if he doesn't plan on actually charging anybody there's no downside to violating rights.

You have to see the difference though. One is an illegal attempt to generate false evidence (the confession) while the other is illegally gathering true evidence (say illegally recording a conversation with a lawyer.)

If they're never caught, it doesn't matter what system we're using! The system we use now is no less vulnerable to crap like that.

Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."

And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.

Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is /exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.

No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).

You're missing my point. Violating the rights is a crime, it's not a question of whether it goes to trial. I recognize the practical problems inherent in that, but in my imagined system they would be charged for that. Right now the same incentive exists - if nothing goes to trial, illegal evidence doesn't matter, does it. Hell, there have been news stories here on slashdot about the DEA laundering evidence to hide the illegal nature of its collection.

If somebody is willing to throw away their career and go to jail for a few years in order to 'nail' a criminal, I think you need to stop and think long and hard about what person they're trying to hit.

If anybody else broke into the criminal's house and found a bunch of evidence of wrongdoing, we'd accept the evidence. I just don't see why we should treat the police any different.

Look, I don't mind that we disagree on this. I just don't agree with your arguments here. You're jumping from "punish the government (or police) such that they won't break the law" to "You MUST use this method!" You're not actually telling me why you think my method is worse.