trc@houti.UUCP (08/23/83)
Response to Larry Kolodney: First, I dont know that I am addressing the Bill of Rights - I do not know whether this is a case of the courts directly interpreting the Bill of Rights as they see fit, or of merely enforcing an explicit law. I am assuming that there is an explicit law. If not, I think that the courts are mis-interpreting the point of the Bill of Rights. And from that, I think that there should be an explicit law, or even a constitutional ammendment, if necessary. Frankly, I doubt that it would be - the Supreme Court has reversed positions on Constitutional matters before, when their understanding of the law changed. Secondly, I would not agree that the Bill of Rights gives the guilty the *same* rights as the innocent. As I pointed out in my original note, accused criminals are presumed innocent until guilty. Once they are found guilty, they *definitely* lose civil rights - by being put in jail, or even executed. They may still have some protection, but that protection is limited. I agree that you only said the Bill of Rights protects the guilty, but the implication is that it gives the *same* protection. This is simply not true. My argument was not so much from a constitutional point of view, as from the view of questioning "What is right?". Response to ssc-vax!sts - Stan tlh: As I said before - I doubt that the civil rights charges would frequently be pressed in "borderline" cases - so the officers would have some lattitude, but would also have to be always aware of that border. If policemen commit crimes, they are guilty, and should be treated as such. The question of whether civil rights are now too extensive is another matter. Tom Craver houti!trc