> Instead of letting the suspect go free on a technicality, I propose
> that we go ahead and prosecute the suspect in a court of law. Then
> we also prosecute the cop for violating the suspects' rights...
That's the way it always was up until Mapp v. Ohio, where the Supreme
Court imposed the exclusionary rule. There's nothing in the
Constitution or traditional legal practice that mandates the rule,
just that one decision. But that decision happened because of years
of constant abuse of suspects by cops and prosecutors despite the
ostensible remedy of prosecuting them for their conduct. In reality,
that simply never worked, because cops, prosecutors, and judges are
all paid by the same monopoly and all take sides instead of working
to find the truth. The higher courts had tried for many years to
levy higher sanctions, fines, and other consequences to such abuses
of power to no avail. The assault on Ms. Mapp's person and home was
just the last straw the court needed to give up on niceties and
impose the strictest sanction they could: exclusion of evidence.
Sure, the problem would probably have been better solved by the
legislature getting serious with abusive cops, but that kind of
stuff doesn't get you elected--"tough (and stupid) on crime" gets
you elected. The courts couldn't create the laws needed, but
they do have the power to decide what evidence they'll hear and
what they won't, so that's the solution they imposed. I'm not
sure I'm willing to give up on that, because it did have a positive
effect on the problem that nothing else prior to that did.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:22 MDT