bprice@bmcg.UUCP (08/19/83)
Reply to Tom Craver:
No, I haven't seen "Star Chamber", but I've read and thought about the
suppression-of-evidence rule and its effects for some years now. By the way,
it is a *rule*, rather than a law, because none of our elected representatives
had a hand in constructing it. It is also fairly recent, as evidence rules go.
The theory seems to be that the officer is acting as an agent of the state
("under color of the law"); the state is the complainant in the criminal case;
thus the misbehavior of the officer is the misbehavior of a party to the case;
and the misbehavior of a party to a case *may not* result in the benefit
of that party. The principles seem sound, but there is a better solution than
the suppression rule, and it is close to your suggestion: If the state were
to define the officer's realm of agency so that he could not use his office as
a defense against unreasonable behavior, then all the current legal remedies
would be available against such misbehavior.
Any evidence illegally gained could be used in court. The officer who
illegally gained the evidence would be civilly and criminally liable for his
actions, regardless of the outcome of the case in which the evidence is used.
Normal defenses would be available, but not his status as an officer of the
state. Nor could his employer assume his liability: that would signify that
he was indeed acting under color of law! I would not require new judicial or
quasi-judicial procedures for handling such liability.
-------------------------------
This is only one example of the nonreality of the judicial system. How
about the Miranda (?) Rule: if a suspect is held, but not read the magic
incantation ("You have a right to remain silent. If you give up that right,
anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You
have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you wish
to have an attorney present and cannot afford one, one will be appointed for
you..."), then he may not be tried for any crime for which he might have been
held!
------------------------------
Another inanity is the insanity/diminished-capacity defense: "I am not
capable of behaving in accordance with the standards of society or of reality,
and it is therefor unjust to segregate me from society"! This is particularly
galling since it is an immediate, direct denial that the defendant is human,
but is still entitled to be treated as one. If some definition of human is used
that differs from Jefferson's, this defense becomes equivalent to a claim of
special privilege, the granting of which is a denial of "...all men are created
equal..."!
--Bill Price {sdcrdcf ucbvax!sdcsvax}!bmcg!bprice