Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    So you're saying that we are meeting out justice now?  Are you blind?
    I'm not talking a slap on the wrist.  I'm talking severe punishments.
    I'm talking incarceration...swift stiff sentencing.  Are there really
    so many cops who are willing to do serious time and lose their whole 
    lives (families, jobs, etc) just to catch a crook?  If so, you have 
    much more confidence in mankind then I do.
    
    It's not like letting a thief keep the spoils he stole.  It's like not
    depriving the rest of us specifically the victims of seeing justice
    done.  Remember them...the victims.  The current state of this system
    isn't even close to meeting out justice and only victimizes the victim
    again.
    
    Why don't we take this offline or start another note if you choose to
    continue along this line.  I'd rather not see this topic ratholed.
    
    Thanks, Jill
    
                          

re Note 958.1 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     So you're saying that we are meeting out justice now?  Are you blind?

        Yes, and no.

        Of course mistakes are made.  Mistakes are always made. 
        But my claim is that you cannot devise a better� system
        implemented by human beings.  Like democracy and capitalism,
        it is another terribly defective system yet is better than
        any of the alternatives.

        �I'm not claiming that the current system is incapable of any
        improvement -- of course not.  I'm talking instead of the
        basic notion of giving the accused, even those "obviously"
        guilty of heinous crimes, inviolate rights in the process
        which, if violated, invalidate the process.  I don't want to
        live in a country where, if it's important enough, my rights
        as an accused can be abrogated.

>     Are there really
>     so many cops who are willing to do serious time and lose their whole 
>     lives (families, jobs, etc) just to catch a crook?  

        I guess I don't believe that such severe penalties will
        actually be dealt for infractions such as failure to get
        search warrants and interrogations without benefit of
        counsel.   For one thing it would require new legislation.

>     Remember them...the victims.  The current state of this system
>     isn't even close to meeting out justice and only victimizes the victim
>     again.
  
        Does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically
        mention victims at all?  While I am certain that victims are
        being exploited and victimized again, it is at the hands of
        those who exploit their grief for right-wing political
        benefit.

        Bob

Re: .2 Bob F.

>        Does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically
>        mention victims at all?

Does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically say that a
conviction should be overturned if a search warrant is defective?

>	 While I am certain that victims are
>        being exploited and victimized again, it is at the hands of
>        those who exploit their grief for right-wing political
>        benefit.

It's not just the immediate victims of a crime that I'd be worried about,
but society in general.  Every time a criminal is freed on a technicality
society is less safe than it might have been.

I agree that there needs to be a strong incentive for prosecutors and
police to respect the rights of the accused, but I think we may have gone
too far in that direction.  There should be a distinction between a
harmless error, such a mistake on a search warrant that the police
believed to be correct, and a blatant violation of the suspect's rights.

I don't think 99 guilty people should be set free so that one innocent
person can be saved.  Send all 100 to prison, but realize that one of
those hundred might be innocent.  Don't impose a sentence that can't be
commuted later; abolish the death penalty and make prisons safe and humane
places of confinement.  I would also abolish the insanity defense.  If the
perpetrator of a crime is found to be insane they should be kept in a
well-secured insane asylum until "cured", at which point they should be
transferred to a regular prison to serve the remainder of their sentence.

				-- Bob

re Note 958.3 by GRIM::MESSENGER:

> >        Does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically
> >        mention victims at all?
> 
> Does the Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically say that a
> conviction should be overturned if a search warrant is defective?

        You (and others) are painting an extreme scenario that is
        most unusual.

        The rule has never been "if your rights have been violated
        then you go free."  Rather, the rule is that the result of
        the violation is excluded from use in the criminal proceeding. 
        That *may* result in the accused "going free" if there is
        otherwise insufficient evidence to convict.  On the other hand
        if there is sufficient evidence to convict, then most likely
        the accused will be convicted.

        (I can't help but think that the writers of the Bill of
        Rights anticipated that the rights they were defining would
        result in some evidence not being obtained that would
        otherwise be obtained, and hence some small proportion of the
        really guilty would not be convicted.  I believe that they
        felt that protection from abuse was worth it in the grand
        scheme of things.)


> It's not just the immediate victims of a crime that I'd be worried about,
> but society in general.  Every time a criminal is freed on a technicality
> society is less safe than it might have been.

        Certainly, without a doubt, no question!

        The technicalities exist because there are other dangers that
        citizens need protection from.  It is ironic that
        conservatives, who day in and day out decry the advance of
        government power over individuals, do not seem to understand
        that the rights of the accused were defined precisely to
        guard against the abuse of government power.  These were not
        theoretical abuses but abuses that the colonists really
        experienced.

        I believe that the rights of the accused are an attempt to
        balance two sets of dangers: the abuse of prosecutorial power
        and the failure to convict law breakers.  We get a little
        more of one in order to ensure less of the other.

> There should be a distinction between a
> harmless error, such a mistake on a search warrant that the police
> believed to be correct, and a blatant violation of the suspect's rights.

        Of course!  No argument!  But the principle must still stand.

        Bob

Re: .4 Bob F.

>        You (and others) are painting an extreme scenario that is
>        most unusual.

Admittedly, the scenario may be more unusual than it appears since it's
the most sensational cases that get publicized.

>        (I can't help but think that the writers of the Bill of
>        Rights anticipated that the rights they were defining would
>        result in some evidence not being obtained that would
>        otherwise be obtained, and hence some small proportion of the
>        really guilty would not be convicted.  I believe that they
>        felt that protection from abuse was worth it in the grand
>        scheme of things.)

I agree that it's worthwhile to let a few guilty people go free in order
to protect the rights of the innocent and reduce the chance of tyranny.
My impression, though, is that too many guilty people have been going free
or receiving inadequate sentences.

Does this mean I have to surrender my Liberal membership card? :-)

				-- Bob

.5 GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"

Does this mean I have to surrender my Liberal membership card? :-)

	Yes, right now. But pick up your realists card on the way out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we are discussing two separate areas here. When you talk about someone
being let off with only a slap on the wrist, this is not a constitutional
problem. Other than the eighth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) I don't
recall anything that addresses sentences. 

You are talking about the Constitution, however, when you talk about
technicalities. The entire Bill of Rights was written to protect us from the
excesses of government. Half of the document (4-8) protect us against our own
police forces. Obviously the authors believed that this was very important, and
I agree with them. 

I don't have faith in our goverment to police itself on these matters. Already
we are running roughshod over the Constitution in the war on drugs, via the RICO
statutes. They allow local authorities to seize your property and then put the
burden of proof on you to demonstrate that it was not bought with profits from
illegal activities. And they get to keep the profit! There are many well
documented cases where this power has been badly abused. Basically, I would
rather tip the balance such that the police must follow the law of the land,
giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, than to allow the police to make
that judgement.

Steve