Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 9

taxwonk · 09-15-2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The exclusionary rule has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or guilty men going to jail. It is about excluding probative evidence. The less probative evidence there is the less likely the court is to issue the correct verdict.

Finally, you understand the effect of the rule. Now, let's see if we can get you to put your arms around the purpose.

Penske_Account · 09-15-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I hope whatever jackass of an editor decided to run it as a news item is out of a job today, or at least writing obits for the pet-lovers section of the Sunday inserts.

I accept that apology. Thanks Wonk, I knew you were a stand up guy.

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
n'est'ce-pas?

I don't speak arabic.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-15-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Byrd is your leader, not mine. You should look at the damage he does.

I already took responsibility for that stuff Byrd said years ago. If you've got something since yesterday, let's see it.

Spanky · 09-15-2005, 04:06 PM

If you shoot my kid and I break into your house and find the gun you used to kill my kid it can be used in evidence in a trial. You can sue me for tresspassing and you can ask the District Attorney to prosecute me for breaking and entering but the gun can still be used as evidence. You will simply get the gun back that I stole after the trial.

If the police do an illegal search of the house and find the gun (by screwing up the warrant or something) then even if the gun is probative it cannot be used.

I find that ridiculous.

taxwonk · 09-15-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
???? If a murderer or rapist or other felon gets to roam free when they are actually guilty because probative evidence is disallowed you don't think that punished the victim? What do the cops really care. The victim has much more of a stake in the perpetrator being punished than the cops do.

How? Is the victim less dead? Less raped? The victim has already been harmed. Once again, the criminal justice system is not about retribution. It is the means by which our society maintains social order and protects its citizens. It's purpose is not to provide an organized means for the victim to seek revenge.

Shape Shifter · 09-15-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That may be the dumbest post I have ever read. I can't think of dumber one. If you don't think guilty people have walked where they would have been convicted if certain probative evidence wasn't disallowed, you are either insane, in denial, dishonest or incredibly dumb.

How often does this happen?

Shape Shifter · 09-15-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If you shoot my kid and I break into your house and find the gun you used to kill my kid it can be used in evidence in a trial. You can sue me for tresspassing and you can ask the District Attorney to prosecute me for breaking and entering but the gun can still be used as evidence. You will simply get the gun back that I stole after the trial.

If the police do an illegal search of the house and find the gun (by screwing up the warrant or something) then even if the gun is probative it cannot be used.

I find that ridiculous.

I find it to be a check on the authority of the state. I thought you were for limited government?

SlaveNoMore · 09-15-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Spanky
If the police do an illegal search of the house and find the gun (by screwing up the warrant or something) then even if the gun is probative it cannot be used.

I find that ridiculous.

We each have our pet causes around here.

Spanky · 09-15-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Any effect on the defendant is purely collateral.

Kind of like the collateral damage when you drop a nuclear bomb on a city to kill one person. Your method of trying to protect the defendents rights all prevents the court from making the appropriate verdict. Since important decisions are made by the criminal courts (decisions over life and death) your collateral damage can be very devastating to the community.

taxwonk · 09-15-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That may be the dumbest post I have ever read. I can't think of dumber one. If you don't think guilty people have walked where they would have been convicted if certain probative evidence wasn't disallowed, you are either insane, in denial, dishonest or incredibly dumb.

I didn't say that I don't think guilty people have walked because probative evidence was excluded, did I? I said that the exclusionary rule doesn't provide that the defendant shall be released.

It's not terribly persuasive to call me stupid because you can't grasp the difference between the rule and a collateral result. It's no wonder you left the law to become a real estate vulture. Things like subtlety and nuance are truly lost on you, aren't they?

Spanky · 09-15-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
How? Is the victim less dead? Less raped? The victim has already been harmed. Once again, the criminal justice system is not about retribution. It is the means by which our society maintains social order and protects its citizens. It's purpose is not to provide an organized means for the victim to seek revenge.

So how does letting guilty rapists and murderes out on the streets help "maintain social order" and "protect its citizens".

Spanky · 09-15-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I didn't say that I don't think guilty people have walked because probative evidence was excluded, did I? I said that the exclusionary rule doesn't provide that the defendant shall be released.

If a defendant is being held based on certain evidence, and that evidence is then excluded because of an improper search, then the defendant is released.

In certain circumstances if a prosecutor is not allowed to use certain evidence then they can't go to trial and the criminal walks.

It is really not that complicated.

Shape Shifter · 09-15-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If a defendant is being held based on certain evidence, and that evidence is then excluded because of an improper search, then the defendant is released.

In certain circumstances if a prosecutor is not allowed to use certain evidence then they can't go to trial and the criminal walks.

It is really not that complicated.

And it's really not that complicated to obtain evidence legally. Happens every day.

taxwonk · 09-15-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If you shoot my kid and I break into your house and find the gun you used to kill my kid it can be used in evidence in a trial. You can sue me for tresspassing and you can ask the District Attorney to prosecute me for breaking and entering but the gun can still be used as evidence. You will simply get the gun back that I stole after the trial.

If the police do an illegal search of the house and find the gun (by screwing up the warrant or something) then even if the gun is probative it cannot be used.

I find that ridiculous.

This post says it all. You claim to be a libertarian, but you have no understanding of libertarian principles. You are baffled by what is as clear as day to my nine-year old. Perhaps a trip to the Library for an elementary school text on civics might be in order?

taxwonk · 09-15-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Kind of like the collateral damage when you drop a nuclear bomb on a city to kill one person. Your method of trying to protect the defendents rights all prevents the court from making the appropriate verdict. Since important decisions are made by the criminal courts (decisions over life and death) your collateral damage can be very devastating to the community.

The exclusionary rule is not aimed at protecting the defendant's rights. It's designed to safeguard the people's rights.