Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I didn't say that I don't think guilty people have walked because probative evidence was excluded, did I?

You said: "That's why the exclusionary rule doesn;t result in the criminal going free."

So like Ty you have contradicted yourself.

You said the exclusionary ruled doesn't result in the criminal going free. You didn't say that the exclusionary rule doesn't always result.......... Or most of the time. You said the exclusionary ruled DOESN'T result.

In certain circumstances it does. Your statement was wrong.

[taxwonk]

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.

Then why are you having so much trouble understanding it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And it's really not that complicated to obtain evidence legally. Happens every day.

A lot of what gets bounced was obtained in a bone fide attempts to get it legally. If you were a cop do you think you'd never make a mistake about what you see/find in a car. Or remember that old case about believing the warrent wasn't overbroad? The rule was intended to prevent abuse by throwing out anything that could come of abuse.

I don't know if the reasons apply to the mistakes as much.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You said: "That's why the exclusionary rule doesn;t result in the criminal going free."

So like Ty you have contradicted yourself.

You said the exclusionary ruled doesn't result in the criminal going free. You didn't say that the exclusionary rule doesn't always result.......... Or most of the time. You said the exclusionary ruled DOESN'T result.

In certain circumstances it does. Your statement was wrong.

No. The lack of sufficient legally obtained evidence is what results in guilty people going free, not the exclusionary rule.

You know, for a while, this was fun, like a cat toying with a mouse. But I tire of you. If you were a mouse, I'd eat you now.

[Spanky]

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

The purpose it to protect people from illegal searches and seizures. But the rule doesn't accomplish that. Since the cops are not penalized for doing the illegal search and seizure the rule punishes the wrong people. You don't punish the cop but punish the citizens and the victims by letting a guilty person go free (in many cases).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A lot of what gets bounced was obtained in a bone fide attempts to get it legally. If you were a cop do you think you'd never make a mistake about what you see/find in a car. Or remember that old case about believing the warrent wasn't overbroad? The rule was intended to prevent abuse by throwing out anything that could come of abuse.

I don't know if the reasons apply to the mistakes as much.

I'm sympathetic in the case of honest error. But if we didn't have the rule, don't you think we'd see a lot more "honest errors"?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A lot of what gets bounced was obtained in a bone fide attempts to get it legally. If you were a cop do you think you'd never make a mistake about what you see/find in a car. Or remember that old case about believing the warrent wasn't overbroad? The rule was intended to prevent abuse by throwing out anything that could come of abuse.

I don't know if the reasons apply to the mistakes as much.

You have a valid point. And a lot of the 4th Amendment jurisprudence of the last 20 years has shifted toward drawing that distinction between behavior that is violative of the right to be free from an illegal search and mistakes. I think that there is still a need to further refine the balance. But I can't understand how anyone who understands civil liberties would favor eliminating the exclusionary rule in its entirety.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
The purpose it to protect people from illegal searches and seizures. But the rule doesn't accomplish that. Since the cops are not penalized for doing the illegal search and seizure the rule punishes the wrong people. You don't punish the cop but punish the citizens and the victims by letting a guilty person go free (in many cases).

How many cases?

Originally posted by taxwonk
But I tire of you.

New Board Mizzle, fo' shizzle!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
The purpose it to protect people from illegal searches and seizures. But the rule doesn't accomplish that. Since the cops are not penalized for doing the illegal search and seizure the rule punishes the wrong people.

I understand your attraction to the concept of monetizing a penalty, but don't you think that the exclusionary rule ALSO penalizes cops?

It forces them to find separate incriminating evidence. If they are unable to do that, they've failed their job. Though not extracted from a detective's left pocket, this sounds like a penalty to me.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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?

I never claimed to be a libertarian.

And no wonder you nine year older doesn't get it because his parent has gone through law school and doesn't get it.

I am worried about the government doing its job improperly. I don't mind it when the government does its job improperly. If the cops come in my house and beat me up I want to be able to sue them or prosecute them.

If the cops do an illegal search of my house and find nothing I have no recourse. I only have recourse if I am guilty of something and they find probative evidence. It is so screwed up.

The rule doesn't protect people from searches and seizures, it just benefits guilty people when they are subject to an illegal search and seizure.

Can you grasp that?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am worried about the government doing its job improperly. I don't mind it when the government does its job improperly.

So like Ty, you have contradicted yourself.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. The lack of sufficient legally obtained evidence is what results in guilty people going free, not the exclusionary rule.

One planet do you live on? You assume there is always more evidence. On planet earth there is a finite amount of evidence. Sometimes if certain evidence is excluded there is not enough legally obtainable evidence to convict the person.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
So like Ty, you have contradicted yourself.

Yes I did. I mistyped. It should have said I don't mind it when the goverment does its job properly I just mind it when it does its job improperly.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm sympathetic in the case of honest error. But if we didn't have the rule, don't you think we'd see a lot more "honest errors"?

Doesn't seem to be a problem in England. If England can live without the exclusionary rule, why can't we?