[net.legal] Twisting the legal system

ka@spanky.UUCP (08/29/83)

It seems that a	lot of people out there	have expressed the view
that the law cannot function effectively if it works as	it is
intended to.  For example, advocating the elimination of the
exclusionary rule implies that the system needs	illegally
obtained evidence to work well.	 Especially common is the notion
that it	is harmful for people to know what the law is.	A typical
comment:
	It appears that	this "the client is always to be
	defended" attitude may cause some lawyers to counsel
	their corporate	clients	in circumventing or even breaking
	the law, to the	clear detriment	of society.  An	example
	of this	would be a lawyer reviewing court settlements in
	auto accident cases to come up with an expected	cost
	figure of defective brakes to compare to the cost of
	recalling the cars involved.

It seems to me that if you are opposed to the effects of a law
you should come	right out and advocate changing	the law.  If you
want illegally collected evidence to be	introduced in court, you
should advocate	the modification or repeal of the fourth
amendment; otherwise where would you be	if policemen stopped
violating the fourth amendment?	 Similarly, if you think that our
system will not	work if	people know what the laws are, you should
advocate changing the laws rather than blaming lawyers for
explaining the law.  If	you really do want a system in which it
is impossible to find out what the law is, there is still no
reason to limit	the legal advice a lawyer can give to a	client.
Far better to have the legislature pass	the laws you feel should
be kept	secret in a closed session and deliver them secretly to
judges.	 After all, it wouldn't	be fair	if lawyers could find out
what the secret	laws were and obey them	while the rest of us were
trotting off to	jail for breaking laws that we didn't know
existed.
					Kenneth	Almquist

lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (08/30/83)

Here we go again, confusing statement of law with punishment to be
associated with it:

* It seems to me that if you are opposed to the effects of a law
* you should come right out and advocate changing the law.  If you
* want illegally collected evidence to be introduced in court, you
* should advocate the modification or repeal of the fourth
* amendment; otherwise where would you be if policemen stopped
* violating the fourth amendment?	
*					Kenneth	Almquist

Again, Fourth Amendment states that a given act is wrong. It does
NOT (repeat NOT) state the punishment for the crime. I have yet to
find written in any law in the United States of America that
violation of the Fourth Amendment by one side to a case gives
freedom to the other side. If the evidence was illegally COLLECTED
(not illegal of itself), PUNISH THE COLLECTOR!

"Count on me to rehash it again until it's understood"
Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab

dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (09/01/83)

Larry, 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. Sure,
you say, prosecute the cops. Then you have the problem that
you need to *prove beyond a reaosnable doubt* that they committed
an offense. You may not be able to do this, even though you can
raise enough questions about the way the evidence was collected that
it really shouldn't be allowed in.

Dave Sherman
[not speaking for] The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
 {allegra,cornell,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver,watmath}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave