- This topic has 6 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I think that rule is stupid. For those of you who don’t know what that means, it’s evidence found illegally cannot be used as evidence in court (though there are exceptions). For example, if the police suspect Jimmy is a murderer and break into his house without a warrant and then finds the murder weapon, then that weapon cannot be used against Jimmy in court. How stupid! Why should Jimmy the murderer benefit from the illegal actions of someone else? Why are we protecting criminals? IMHO, if the police do something illegal, like break into someone’s house illegally, than they should face sanctions. Fines and/or suspensions should be enough of a hindrance to prevent the police from violating laws. But if you have evidence that someone is a murderer (or some other kind of criminal), legally obtained or not, it should be able to be used to put criminals away! Criminals should not be able to get away with their crimes because of technicalities!
Maskim 100% now how do we get this law changed?
This law is very easy to change. Unlike statutes, which need like hundreds of people in congress to change, laws that are constitutional are very easy to change.
I will make you a plan for changing it.
1. Get a group of 5 people together who will help you.
2. All of you get a really high LSAT score.
3. Go to elite law schools. Preferably Yale, b’dieved Harvard.
4. Get clerkships with an elite judge.
5. Get more clerkships with Supreme Court judges.
6. Work for the US attorney’s office.
7. Buddy up to your home state senators, and give them money.
8. Get appointed as federal judges.
9. Get appointed as supreme court judges.
10. Change the law!!!
See, in ten steps, you have it all changed.
Also, it is a really really good law, and I will write awful things about you on YWN if you change it.
I think part of the problem is that we don’t really remember what things were like before these decisions became law. In the old days, police would beat people during questioning, never inform them of their right to be represented, deprive them of sleep for days, arrest family members to force confessions, and the list goes on.
The courts came up with these rules to reign in the police. The thinking is that if the police know that criminals can walk free if the police screw up, then perhaps the police will be more careful. Also, the thinking is that it’s better to let the guilty go free than to imprison the innocent.
I believe the doctrine is called “fruit of the poisoned tree.”
In any event, punishing the cops isn’t necessarily a possibility as often, the parameters of what is a valid search/seizure is decided by a court — often years after the fact. I don’t think you can (or should) punish cops for doing their jobs in a way that, at the time, was understood to be legal.
The Wolf
See, in ten steps, you have it all changed.
Can we use your 10-step method for losing weight as well?
Eric Holder ate it all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.