The Consideration of the Severity of the Offense
- When the court comes to search for the correct and just result in the circumstances of the case, Taking into account the investigative actions and methods taken, The consideration of the matter should not be overlooked. - The severity of the offense. In the Issacharov case, this question remained undecided, but it can be said from the consistent rulings of the Supreme Court, that the severity of the offense will not constitute a consideration for avoiding the disqualification of evidence and/or a confession by a defendant, In accordance with the doctrine of judicial invalidation,, It is precisely in serious offenses that the defendant's right to a fair trial must be respected, And there is no logic in applying the doctrine to only minor offenses. In this context, see the words of 22' Judge A' A' Levi IICriminal Appeal 4988/08 Farhi N' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (1.8.11) (Below: "Floral Matter"):
"This set of considerations actually serves as a double-edged sword - While reason does not tolerate the acquittal of someone who committed such serious acts, The Importance of Protecting the Fairness of the Proceeding and Safeguarding the Rights of the Accused, Increases in these cases. The work of doing justice in the broad sense also includes the interest of respecting the rights of defendants. Accepting the evidence due to its importance to the prosecution may also harm the public's trust in the government authorities, and create a sense that man is a pawn in the hands of the government, which changes the rules according to his needs. In light of this, I am of the opinion that when the violation of the fairness of the proceeding as reflected in the totality of the considerations and circumstances is severe, This set of considerations does not legitimize the evidence, even when the offenses attributed to the defendant are among the most serious in the statute book, And its vitality to his conviction is respectable" (Name, In the paragraph 19).
- In this spirit, he ruled 22' Justice N' Hendel in the case of al-'Aqa (Criminal Appeal 5956/08 Al-'Aqa 50' State of Israel [Posted inNevo] (23.11.11)), Because the weight that must be given to these considerations is low, A ruling joined by Justice Y' Danziger, We noted that "When it comes to a serious violation of the right to due process, Thus, the very severity of the offense cannot justify the qualification of evidence obtained in a manner that contradicts the right to a fair trial" (Name, In the paragraph 6 To the opinion of 22' Judge J' Danziger). Not only that., Recently, It is possible to discern the trend of case law regarding the withdrawal of the consideration regarding the severity of the offense (as a consideration that has the power to resist the invalidation of confessions due to taking measures that violate the right to a fair trial) In appropriate cases. Later on, I will also refer to rulings that relate to this issue.
Interrogation of Minors - The Increased Risk of False Confessions and the Amendment of the Youth Law
- The fact that the suspect is (The defendant is here) Minor, Creates a wide range of specific provisions that arise and grow by virtue of the existing law that applies to minors. Features, Personality Structure, The Forces, The needs and stamina of the interrogee-Different minors are, Substantially, of those that exist in relation to the interrogee-Adult. Law Enforcement Authorities, This includes, Investigative Authorities, must place a violinist at their feet the full range of rights that arise for the interrogee, Considering his age, Against the background of the specific provisions of the Youth Law, With its variety of provisions and clauses. El la, To the Investigative Authority, Take investigative measures that may contradict the provisions of the laws applicable to minors; Especially, Given the personality characteristics and structures that distinguish minors from adults, which put them at increased risk of making false confessions.
The Honorable Judge Menachem Finkelstein described this well in the Serious Crimes Case (Central District) 10101-11-09 State of Israel v. A. S. [published in Nevo] (November 29, 2015), in paragraph 334 of the judgment: