General / Off-Topic Which is more important; evidence or intelligence?

Arry

Arry
That is my question for the week: What is more important, when preventing crime; such a terrorism, is it evidence, or intelligence?

With 'evidence', there are often legal requirements that must be adhered to and this can make said 'evidence' invalid, if correct procedures are not followed, in the way it's gathered.

With 'intelligence' on the other hand; this can be gathered in any way, by whatever means. From 'informants' to high-tec satellite phone tracking systems etc.. Yes again; there are laws in place in some countries to protect the public from such intrusions, but basically. Those that can, do so if they feel the need is justified and once the bad guy is found, making his device; those that find out this 'intelligence' are not going to just sit back and let the bad guy continue.

So which; in the preventing and detection of crime, is the more important, intelligence or evidence?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Given the lack of evidence found after intelligence led major military operations, I'd rather that at least some evidence was available to season the intelligence before big decisions were made.
 

Arry

Arry
Robert Maynard said:
Given the lack of evidence found after intelligence led major military operations, I'd rather that at least some evidence was available to season the intelligence before big decisions were made.
Click to expand...
I was hoping that this thread was not going to get political; but you just squashed that one.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Arry said:
I was hoping that this thread was not going to get political; but you just squashed that one.
Click to expand...

It could not fail to get political given events in the comparatively recent past.

.... and, given the hidden nature of sourcing intelligence, its veracity can be questionable.
 

Arry

Arry
Robert Maynard said:
It could not fail to get political given events in the comparatively recent past.

.... and, given the hidden nature of sourcing intelligence, its veracity can be questionable.
Click to expand...
I just had a thought. You are talking about military intelligence; which as we know is a contradiction in terms.

I am talking about legitimate and valid intelligence. Facts.
 

Minonian

Banned
Minonian
Arry said:
So which; in the preventing and detection of crime, is the more important, intelligence or evidence?
Click to expand...
If By intelligence do you meant intel? What's the difference in this matters?
Can you have evidence without good intel? Or can you have intel without evidence? (as you have no clue, what's pointing toward more information?)

Sorry, but the whole question is somewhat misleading, because you can't have intel if you dont have evidence (which points toward the right direction) And you cant have evidence if you don't have intel.

This is the good ole chicken or egg problematics.

What i saying is, you need something to pick up the clue.
 

Minonian

Banned
Minonian
Arry said:
Not if it is gathered by an inappropriate means.
Click to expand...
Illegitimately gathered intel is counts as a sin and in a lot of places it's illegal to use up in any legal procedure, and even where is not, still counts as a crime, and therefore crime evidence. (toward the gatherer)
 

Arry

Arry
Minonian said:
If By intelligence do you meant intel? What's the difference in this matters?
Can you have evidence without good intel? Or can you have intel without evidence? (as you have no clue, what's pointing toward more information?)

Sorry, but the whole question is somewhat misleading, because you can't have intel if you dont have evidence (which points toward the right direction) And you cant have evidence if you don't have intel.

This is the good ole chicken or egg problematics.

What i saying is, you need something to pick up the clue.
Click to expand...
Ok. Evidence has to be gathered by legal means; if it is to be used to prosecute criminals.

But Intelligence can be gathered by any means, if it prevents the 'greater' crime happening.
 

Minonian

Banned
Minonian
Patrick_68000 said:
Often it is not necessary to have proofs to see the obvious facts. For me, arrest, incarceration and interrogation are the best prevention
Click to expand...

You have to get to that point right?

Arry said:
Ok. Evidence has to be gathered by legal means; if it is to be used to prosecute criminals.
Click to expand...

True.

Arry said:
But Intelligence can be gathered by any means, if it prevents the 'greater' crime happening.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is you cannot really use this up in crime prevention, or prosecution. And talking about greater good? Where are the limitations of that? How far you willing and ready to go, in the name of greater good? It's a dangerous thing to cross over some lines with an excuse so good as this one, and once you do it? Its becoming increasingly easier to do it again and again, go farer and farer. How you going to stop that? How you going to stop some people to abuse this kind of power?

- "I did for my god" Says ISIL.
- "i did for my people" says Hitler.
- "i did for the peoples revolution" says the communist...

And all of em? Did it for the greater good. My humble question is; This is good?

Anway, the point is, i think it's right to go greater lengths in case so threatening as a terrorist attack but even that does not always helps. (9/11) And yet again, it must be regulated, and legal. Otherwise? It's hurts as much than helps. Again, my old mantra. Minimal harm, as #1 objective moral compass.
 
Last edited:

Arry

Arry
Minonian said:
You have to get to that point right?



True.



Yeah, the problem is you cannot really use this up in crime prevention, or prosecution. And talking about greater good? Where are the limitations of that? How far you willing and ready to go, in the name of greater good? It's a dangerous thing to cross over some lines with an excuse so good as this one, and once you do it? Its becoming increasingly easier to do it again and again, go farer and farer. How you going to stop that? How you going to stop some people to abuse this kind of power?

- "I did for my god" Says ISIL.
- "i did for my people" says Hitler.
- "i did for the peoples revolution" says the communist...

Anway, the point is, i think it's right to go greater lengths in case so threatening as a terrorist attack but even that does not always helps. (9/11) And yet again, it must be regulated, and legal. Otherwise? It's hurts as much than helps. Again, my old mantra. Minimal harm, as #1 objective moral compass.
Click to expand...
Are the good old, 'moral compass'. Which often gets forgotten, even by the best of them; when working for the greater good.
 

Minonian

Banned
Minonian
Yeah. :) You know why? because most moral compasses are subjective. So it's easy to bend them to your liking. in law this is the so called rubber paragraph's.
But this one is not, so it's usually tossed aside by the people's whom so sure about themselves, or the ones whom goal was abuse from the start, and something like this are standing in their way.
 

Arry

Arry
Minonian said:
Yeah. :) You know why? because most moral compasses are subjective. So it's easy to bend them to your liking. in law this is the so called rubber paragraph's.
But this one is not, so it's usually tossed aside by the people's whom so sure about themselves, or the ones whom goal was abuse from the start, and something like this are standing in their way.
Click to expand...
True.
 

Minonian

Banned
Minonian
This compass always point towards north. And for some people this is most troubling. This raises some question about them right?
Here is another!

Maximal good.

And lets see if anyone else have other reliable compasses like this 2!
 

Robin of Spiritwood

Robin of Spiritwood
Arry said:
That is my question for the week: What is more important, when preventing crime; such a terrorism, is it evidence, or intelligence?

With 'evidence', there are often legal requirements that must be adhered to and this can make said 'evidence' invalid, if correct procedures are not followed, in the way it's gathered.

With 'intelligence' on the other hand; this can be gathered in any way, by whatever means. From 'informants' to high-tec satellite phone tracking systems etc.. Yes again; there are laws in place in some countries to protect the public from such intrusions, but basically. Those that can, do so if they feel the need is justified and once the bad guy is found, making his device; those that find out this 'intelligence' are not going to just sit back and let the bad guy continue.

So which; in the preventing and detection of crime, is the more important, intelligence or evidence?
Click to expand...


If we are preventing something, it hasn't happened yet.
If a crime hasn't happened yet, there can't be evidence of it. It's like my relationship with (insert name of any famous actress).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom