trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/12/83)
Have most of you seen "Star Chamber" yet? This movie got me to thinking about the law that declares that a violation of civil rights by a police officer requires that any evidence gathered as a result (direct or indirect) of that act be dis-regarded. The movie makes two main points - that this law is wrong, but that law in general is proper (as opposed to the "civilized lynch mob" of the "star chamber"). The movie, of course, does not propose a solution - which might make it seem rather depressing - in fact a friend of mine went to see it and *did* come out depressed. They obviously felt that it was a good movie, but that it seemed to be implying "that's the way it's got to be". Consider what the law is aimed at. Its purpose is *not* to protect criminals, but to protect the innocent, which is what the accused must be presumed to be until proven guilty. If my view is correct, the law was framed to prevent police officers from using illegal techniques to obtain information. There is nothing wrong with that purpose, but the law seems to have missed its mark. Rather than aiming at punishing an officer directly for his wrong doing, and so discouraging actions that violate civil rights, the law tries to "put back" the damaged rights - to act as if the action had never taken place. It is rather as if the law tried to re-build a bombed building, rather than punishing the bomber! The flaw here is that the law ends up evading known reality. My suggestion is that the law be repealed, and in its place there be normal punishment under civil law for the violations done by the officers, plus suspension without pay for a period for minor crimes, and of course, removal from the police force for any felony. (An alternate procedure would be to try the officer, and declare him "conditionally guilty". If the defendant is found "not guilty" the officer is punished. If the defendant is found guilty, then any supposed civil rights violations done to him to bring him to justice were not violations since a criminal gives up his civil rights. I dont like this one as well, because it essentially hands the officer a hunting license, and says "do what you want, but dont make a mistake about who is guilty" - and of course, it is not the officer's duty or responsibility to determine guilt - that is the court's. However, it might have nearly equivalent results, and would be better than the present law.) This has the desired result of (strongly) discouraging violations of civil rights by police, while allowing any evidence so gained to be accepted in court. One might fear that this would result in drastically reducing the police force. However, I think that the officers are generally quite careful about civil rights, and would still be careful if this law were in place. Also, there would be less motivation for defense lawyers to charge borderline violations (such as those portrayed in "Star Chamber") against police, since it would not help their case as much. It might only help their case if they suspected the officer of a major crime, which could be used to cast doubt on the character of the officer, and so on his testimony. Opinions? Tom Craver houti!trc
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/15/83)
The Bill of Rights was created to protect the guilty as well as the
innocent from unreasonable behavior by the cops.
--
Larry Kolodney
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-aists@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (08/16/83)
Sounds good (punishing officers for civil-rights violations, rather than discarding evidence) Now, why isn't it done that way? All I can think of is that the civil rights (as currently defined) are so extensive and detailed that violations are not uncommon, and the police force *would* all end up suspended, etc. After all, police officers *do* want to get convictions, presumably just about as much as they want to keep their job. I don't see where the extra deterrent is. stan the leprechaun hacker ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)