Talk:False evidence

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False evidence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Stub‑class

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Forged evidence to acquit

What about forged evidence used to try to acquit? Defendants try to forge alibi evidence like receipts fairly often, and forged emails are not uncommon these days. --James S. 05:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

"Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is used to either convict an innocent person, or to guarantee conviction of a guilty person. Some evidence is forged because the person doing the forensic work finds it easier to fabricate evidence than to perform the actual work involved. The planting of a gun at a crime scene would be used by the police to justify a shooting, and avoid possible prosecution for manslaughter"

Forged evidence cannot only be used to convict the innocent or gaurantee conviction of the guilty, but also to have the guilty go free.
The comment about the forensic evidence has no factual basis, and is simply hypothesis on the part of the author. There is no possible factual source to back up this generalization.
The entire paragraph seems to simply be the opinion of the author and examples of what would be falsified evidence. IT is not a NPOV introduction and definition.

EMT1871 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the NPOV problem here is not very deep and can be remedied. Criticism #1 could be addressed simply by adding that false evidence can be also used to let the guilty go free, and that criminals as well as police have motivations to falsify evidence. With regard to criticism #2, if police and forensic specialists no better than the rest of humanity, it must at least sometimes happen that they falsify evidence out of laziness rather than malice. A citation of that would help but is not necessary. The article certainly could use expanding and improvement. It would be nice to have a history of "Noble Cause corruption".CharlesHBennett (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that falsified evidence could be used to free the guilty, and I will reword those phrases for a neutral viewpoint in the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal charges?

This article deals with the handling of falsified evidence, but what are some examples of people being punished for falsifying evidence? Also, this mainly covers lawyers and police falsifying evidence. I'm just curious,if an ordinary citizen plants evidence to get someone else into trouble, what charges do they face, and would those be civil (like defamation of character) or criminal, like fraud? 98.240.196.218 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD

Would be great if someone could incorporated this recent report on planting drug evidence: We fabricated drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas, former detective testifies (NYDN) Cheers, 139.18.182.30 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]