tac@teldata.UUCP () (07/11/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
Ah, yes, the exclusion rule. Probably the most flagrant miscarriage
of justice since the Emperor turned his thumb up or down on a whim.
The legality or not of the manner of procuring evidence should have
no bearing on the actual course of a trial.
"What HERESY!" you say? Well is that any worse than letting a proved
criminal go loose for failure to comply with complicated guidelines?
This is not just a diatribe, I have a solution to propose.
PLEASE read on.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
To provide for more justice in our system we should take
the following two steps.
1. Any evidence should be accepted in a trial. It should be
taken with the grain of salt which should apply to all
information given in an argument between two opposed factions.
2. If any of the evidence is deemed to have been gathered by
illegal means, the gatherer should be prosecuted for the crime.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Obviously, there would have to be a few guidelines written for those
"crimes" which are not considered illegal now but which would get the
evidence thrown out of court. There would also need to be stiff enough
penalties that the police wouldn't say, "OK, Flannigan, here is the
rubber hose, go get a confession." knowing that the worst that would
happen to Flannigan was a month's probation. I really don't think
that a policeman wants to spend time in jail, and certainly not in
prison. So we still have a system with checks on the police to prevent
(or at least punish) brutality as well as unlawful evidence gathering,
but we have a lot less criminals out on a technicality.
Ok, let fly those arrows!
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Finnagle A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
my employers!hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (07/12/84)
<I'm under arrest. I have the right to remain silent, . . .>
Tom Condon, in a reasonable mood, proposes:
---
To provide for more justice in our system we should take
the following two steps.
1. Any evidence should be accepted in a trial. It should be
taken with the grain of salt which should apply to all
information given in an argument between two opposed factions.
2. If any of the evidence is deemed to have been gathered by
illegal means, the gatherer should be prosecuted for the crime.
---
Unfortunately, somebody's got to arrest and detain the criminal who
gathered evidence illegally. Do you trust a police department where
such things go on, to actually arrest such an officer?
Just being cynical.
Hutch