perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (09/01/83)
I can only stomache so much.
"... the problem is that the only EFFECTIVE way of preventing
the police from violating people's rights is to make the
violation cause all the police's work to be in vain."
This is a direct quote from the only real source of legal opinions on the
net. Now I know that he is speaking only for himself but this is outrageous.
Making the work be in vain sure as hell doesn't punish the police. It punishes
the public!
When the murderer is released on a technicality and kills again, it probably
isn't the cop who made the mistake. When the rapist hits again, it sure as
hell isn't the cop. When the drug pusher gives a kid an overdose or bad deal,
it isn't the cop that takes the stuff!
Come on, the only EFFECTIVE way of preventing police violations of civil
rights is to punish a cop who does violate the criminal's rights. But that
shouldn't absolve the criminal!!!!!
This is almost as bad as the related net stories about the 2-year work-term
sentence for murder, or the $75K fine for protecting life-and-limb from
a robber. Believe me, if I was attacked I would fight back to kill or maim
with no thought to the attacker's rights. He suspended those when he
chose to violate my own rights!
That isn't the law, but that too is reality!
P.S. Dave, I see your arguement, but I don't agree with your conclusions and
I sorta think this is worth net-wide discussion.
--
Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgut
ARPA: utcsrgv!perelgut@UW-BEAVERdave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (09/02/83)
Stephen, you have a point. But you didn't address my concern:
that you would have difficulty proving police guilty in situations
in which their treatment of accused criminals is questionable.
Result: the police aren't convicted (insufficient evidence "beyond
a reasonable doubt"). The accused is convicted. So the police "win".
I don't have any personal experience with the police system, but
my understanding is that police see convicting the criminal as
their goal (quite reasonable). If the criminal gets off, they
have "lost". And there is definite continuity - the same police
that we restrain today are the ones who will be around tomorrow.
So "making the work be in vain" does indeed punish the police.
Dave Sherman
[definitely not speaking for] The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver,watmath}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davehalle1@houxz.UUCP (09/02/83)
The paper yesterday had an account of what really happened. The robbee followed the robber out to some swampland where the robber's car got stuck. The robber, seeing headlights, went for help. Guess who? Anyway, a warning shot was fired, which accidentally hit the robber in the foot. (The robber acknowledged it was accidental.) The judge ruled that the robber was 25% negligent and the shooter 75%. Considering the limited detail in the newspaper account, the judgment seems fair. Both of them should be in jail. Vigilanteism is no answer.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/02/83)
===================== I don't have any personal experience with the police system, but my understanding is that police see convicting the criminal as their goal (quite reasonable). If the criminal gets off, they have "lost". Dave Sherman ====================== I surmise Dave meant "suspect" where he wrote "criminal". The police often seem to make this confusion, but I wouldn't have expected a lawyer to do so. The whole point about rules of evidence is to make sure that when a suspect is finally convicted, it is BECAUSE s/he is a criminal. A person on trial is often assumed by the public to be a criminal, just because the police say so, and if too many "criminals" are acquitted, this would ruin the police reputation of infallibility in this matter. We don't allow torture :-( in the dealings of our police with suspects, because it leads to easy confessions obtained from the wrong people. Nevertheless, disturbing but believable reports come about even the "good" Toronto police that they do use torture to extract confessions (in 52 Division, at least). Rules of evidence can be carried too far, and result in the acquittal of the truly guilty who then commit the same kind of crime again. But I'd rather have that than find myself in the position of trying to prove my innocence in the face of weighted and illegally obtained evidence. Just imagine yourself in the dock for something you haven't done, and then think about your position on the admissibility of evidence. Are you a "criminal" because you are there? And don't think it can't happen to you -- you can't get hit by a car, either, can you? Defending freedom means defending it for everyone, not just those you like at the moment. Martin Taylor
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (09/04/83)
Martin:
I really did mean criminal in the context I was talking about.
I was talking about the point of view of the police. They don't
want to convict every suspect (they're not THAT one-sided), just
every criminal. They don't lose when a suspect gets off, only when
a criminal does. But I agree that the word "criminal" is subjective,
particularly in cases where no conviction is obtained.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver,watmath}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave