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