this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
522 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59731 readers
3232 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you actually educat3d on this or just saying things? Because I'm asking bc idk
So, I had to double check myself on this one, and my original answer wasn't entirely correct.
If it is found that the destruction of evidence was intentional then yes, the jury can be instructed to view the missing information in the least favorable light, or a case can simply be outright dismissed or a default judgement entered.
However even in the case of "accidental" (ie, not provably intentional) deletion the court can still take various measures to redress the balance in some way.
I am not a lawyer but this guy is - https://joneskell.com/how-spoliation-of-evidence-impacts-litigation/
Word, thank you for the high effort and detailed explanation.
Keep in kind that there is a geopolitical orientation in law. What is written here may not apply in all regions, nor all types of legal procedure.
Failing to preserve evidence is sacntionable, even if it isn't willful destruction. The penalties generally aren't as stiff, but if the judges accepted "Oopsie, we accidentally destroyed evidence we were required to preserve" as a defense, there would be an incentive to destroy evidence and claim it was an accident.
The fact that most companies still turn over evidence that's damning to their own cases is the proof that it's generally a bad idea to accidentally destroy evidence.
Look at it another way: If you're speeding and get pulled over, would a judge let you off if you tell him you were only doing 70 in a 35 because you weren't paying attention to the road?