Aren't there usually provisions to override requiring all party consent, if it becomes reasonably necessary as criminal (not civil) evidence or for your own legal/physical protection?
Edit: I looked into it, nope, Florida is utterly insane - a child didn't get consent to record their rapist soliciting/threatening them, so the evidence was denied;
On December 11, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court held in McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014), that a defendant accused of child molestation has an expectation of privacy in conversations between him and his victim taking place in their shared residence where he asked her to have sex with him and also alluded to his prior acts of sexual abuse.
...
the court concluded that the Secrecy of Communications Act’s (SCA), F.S. Ch. 934, et seq. (2014), plain language barred the trial court’s admission of a recorded conversation between McDade and his victim into evidence. The decision may surprise some, especially when one considers that the victim’s actions in McDade also constituted a crime under the SCA and authorized the criminal defendant in that case to sue the victim under the statute’s civil cause of action
>Personally I'd absolutely do it and take the gamble. But I'm risk-thriving (hence started several companies, enjoy international travel, etc.)
I did not think I would ever see someone comparing starting businesses and international travel with committing clear misdemeanors and possible felonies and opening oneself up to civil suits.
So better that more innocents be punished than risk any guilty going free? Truly, your love of the strictest "definition" of democracy is baffling, though I think most would vote against you.
No, Democracy gets it wrong in both directions with more of the guilty set free and more of the innocent sent to prison at least compared to a hypothetical ideal system.
Mob justice can be true justice. As in this case precisely, there was proof that a court refused to listen to.
At some point you need to worry about deep fakes, etc, but there's still cases where the accused more or less says they are guilty and flips the court off and everybody acts like nothing can be done about it.
The main concern (and it's not much of a concern) is that you are charged with wiretapping or the equivalent. The penalties for this are not necessarily severe. Refuse to plea and force a trial.
If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.
If someone is actually a rapist and got off on a technicality it's your moral imperative to do something, no? Stand up to unjust laws. Evil prospers because idiots like you do nothing.
That seems unnecessary ad hominem. Just completely uncalled for.
Also, you're assigning a values judgment to my statements that I genuinely thought I was clear about when I said "Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about."
You have no idea what my stance is on literally anything. Trying to be superior to someone who has given you nothing to feel superior about seems sort of hateful?
Facts are facts, and consequences are consequences, regardless of right or wrong. That was my meaning. Agree with the outcomes or not, believe me or don't. That doesn't matter.
>If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.
How do you figure? If it is a surreptitious recording without consent, the person who was recorded has a pretty clear line to a civil case.
it's a stretch, but the judge could bar revealing the motive for recording, or playing clips that reveal the nature of what was recorded, in order to keep the jurors from learning that it was child rape and nullifying the charge. in practice it's unlikely though.
also wait, were criminal charges brought against the rape victim for recording? did some prosecutor decide to actively assist further ruining the victim's life? civil I can understand, but what a scumbag for not exercising prosecutorial discretion if so.
Or just make a deepfake of anyone you want saying anything you want and try them in the court of public opinion. Mob justice is a poor form of investigation.
Courts in the US often do nothing, so mob justice is all you have.
This is a separate issue that will need to be addressed. It will soon be possible to claim any video or audio evidence is faked. I don't know what happens then, but building off of what happens now, each piece of evidence is just weighting the scales one direction.
We have more options than mob justice. Who told you that, that was our only option? Once you resort to mib justice, their verdicts can't just be "taken back". I'll give you a link to Emmett Till, and that's what mob justice brings.
I live in the US. Courts in the US are often useless. If you have a high profile case you might get justice but usually nothing happens.
I'm definitely aware of what can happen. I don't know how often it does. But if you restrict yourself to forcing justice only when you aren't acting on a hunch you're probably doing the best for yourself you can, because the alternative is usually nothing.
I live in the US as well and you're arguing for a medieval form of justice. You think we should go back to conviction on a "hunch" and feelings. Have we fallen so far that I have to argue for the merits of a justice system based on evidence in a technical forum? Education and critical thought should be inextricably linked.
No, you didn't understand what I wrote. If you are sure you're not operating on a hunch, which is certainly possible, then just shrugging your shoulders when the court does nothing is insane. If you have proof that a court refuses to listen to then it is your moral imperative to act on it if you can do so.
Edit: I looked into it, nope, Florida is utterly insane - a child didn't get consent to record their rapist soliciting/threatening them, so the evidence was denied;
On December 11, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court held in McDade v. State, 154 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2014), that a defendant accused of child molestation has an expectation of privacy in conversations between him and his victim taking place in their shared residence where he asked her to have sex with him and also alluded to his prior acts of sexual abuse.
...
the court concluded that the Secrecy of Communications Act’s (SCA), F.S. Ch. 934, et seq. (2014), plain language barred the trial court’s admission of a recorded conversation between McDade and his victim into evidence. The decision may surprise some, especially when one considers that the victim’s actions in McDade also constituted a crime under the SCA and authorized the criminal defendant in that case to sue the victim under the statute’s civil cause of action
https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/mcdade-v-...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1633...
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2014/sc13...
They have since made a exclusion for this scenario, allowing children to record talking to their abusers.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/7001