The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
given the choice of seeing police departments shut down because of massive damages awards based on a couple of bad cops' conduct, they would choose the current system.

I don't think massive damages would come to pass. Maybe lots of cases. But what are the damages? A new door? A trespass? These are $10,000 cases.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Uh, have you seen a movie in, say, the last 15 or 20 years? I realize that Republicans don't like Hollywood these days, but this is sort of ridiculous.

Most lawyers in movies break some rule of professional ethics, up to and including Atticus Finch. And our clients watch those movies and think that's what good lawyering is. That doesn't mean that we, as as a profession, are off the hook from those rules, even if they prevent us from doing the best for our client.

Have you watched Law and Order recently? The exclusionary rule comes up in just about every episode. What about the practice?

I made the point that people don't like the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the popular culture. That is all I said. These examples of pop culture were used as evidence for that one point. And no one seems to try and dispute that. Instead they try and make it seem like I am using those examples to make some other point.

If you don't think there is wide spread antipathy for the exclusionary rule then those points are relevent, if you agree with that statement then those statements are no longer relevent to the argument.

It is like pointing out that someone is a liar to cast doubt about their statments on the witness stand and then having the opposition saying "just because a witness for the defense is a liar does not mean that my client is guilty." That is true but that is not the point. I am not saying that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule because it is portrayed badly in movies. I was saying that there is a lot of hostility towards the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the pop culture.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Have you watched Law and Order recently? The exclusionary rule comes up in just about every episode. What about the practice?

I made the point that people don't like the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the popular culture. That is all I said. These examples of pop culture were used as evidence for that one point. And no one seems to try and dispute that. Instead they try and make it seem like I am using those examples to make some other point.

If you don't think there is wide spread antipathy for the exclusionary rule then those points are relevent, if you agree with that statement then those statements are no longer relevent to the argument.

It is like pointing out that someone is a liar to cast doubt about their statments on the witness stand and then having the opposition saying "just because a witness for the defense is a liar does not mean that my client is guilty." That is true but that is not the point. I am not saying that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule because it is portrayed badly in movies. I was saying that there is a lot of hostility towards the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the pop culture.

And I'm saying your evidence is shit, and your argument silly. Law and Order and Dirty Harry are not indicative of what popular culture thinks. Law and Order is a soap opera where Sam Waterston overacts as a ridiculously committed lifetime prosecutor who simply does not exist in real life. Dirty Harry was a cynical Hollywood cartoon which cashed in on a rise in crime during the early 70s.

If there's any connection at all between the art you cite and popular opinion, its the reverse of your hypothesis. I'm willing to bet many people developed views of the exclusionary rule based on what they saw on Law and Order and Dirty Harry. You've got the chicken before the egg. And I'll go one further and bet that on a subconscious level, your own views of the exclusionary rule have been influenced by these fairytales. You wouldn't cite such ludicrously weak evidence to support your point if you hadn't had it lurking somewhere in your mind from the moment you started this inane debate.

I'm not being a dick. This is just what I see.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Have you watched Law and Order recently? The exclusionary rule comes up in just about every episode. What about the practice?

I made the point that people don't like the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the popular culture. That is all I said. These examples of pop culture were used as evidence for that one point. And no one seems to try and dispute that. Instead they try and make it seem like I am using those examples to make some other point.

If you don't think there is wide spread antipathy for the exclusionary rule then those points are relevent, if you agree with that statement then those statements are no longer relevent to the argument.

It is like pointing out that someone is a liar to cast doubt about their statments on the witness stand and then having the opposition saying "just because a witness for the defense is a liar does not mean that my client is guilty." That is true but that is not the point. I am not saying that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule because it is portrayed badly in movies. I was saying that there is a lot of hostility towards the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the pop culture.

I get all my attitudes toward criminal law from Boston Legal. Arresting women who take their shirt off at a protest is clearly a violation of their right to free speach, and of some of my rights, too.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are like a religious conservative complaining about the sex and violence on TV. If spelling etc. is so important to you, don't read my posts.

boo fucking hoo

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think massive damages would come to pass. Maybe lots of cases. But what are the damages? A new door? A trespass? These are $10,000 cases.

You don't need many cases of massive damages to cause a big problem for a tightly funded police department. Take away sovereign immunity and the limitations on punis, and you'll get a few nasty awards.

As for your other point, it does point up some of the problem with letting civil liability be the remedy. How do you value a trespass on individual rights? And if you can't assign a value, and you leave it to juries, and juries return low values, then you leave enforcement of a constitutional right to the vagaries of local jury panels.

Maybe that's okay, maybe it's not -- has anyone seen a relevant Cops episode? Or maybe Judge Wopner has had something to say on the issue.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not saying that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule because it is portrayed badly in movies. I was saying that there is a lot of hostility towards the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the pop culture.

And you are saying that in support of your argument that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule. That's where the discussion started. The thread is not about the popular portrayal of the rule, but about whether the rule is a good or bad thing.

Lots of people hate lawyers. Should we get rid of them? Have you seen a criminal defense lawyer portrayed in a good light recently (Hill Street Blues doesn't count as "recent")? Maybe those should be eliminated too (Harry Callahan hates them, after all).

And banning all lobbyists -- that's key too, right?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And you are saying that in support of your argument that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule. That's where the discussion started. The thread is not about the popular portrayal of the rule, but about whether the rule is a good or bad thing.

Lots of people hate lawyers. Should we get rid of them? Have you seen a criminal defense lawyer portrayed in a good light recently (Hill Street Blues doesn't count as "recent")? Maybe those should be eliminated too (Harry Callahan hates them, after all).

And banning all lobbyists -- that's key too, right?

That was my last argument and therefor the weakest of the bunch. It does not stand on its own, but it just put frosting on the cake. No one has addressed the strongest argument because no one can.

1) The law is not necessary. Without it we can still have a system that protects individual rights. The proof of this? Answer = No one has answered the questions of: What makes the US different from all other developed countries that makes us need the exclusionary rule when most other developed countrys protect civil liberties fine without it?

Why do we need it when all other countrys don't?

Answer = we don't need it.

2) The second arguement is that when it is implemented it can have heinous consequnces. (who can argue with that?).

3) It punishes the wrong person: It punishes the victim of the original crime and not the cops who committed the crime (who can argue with that?).

4) The rule is only useful to you if you are guilty. If you are innocent and suffer from police misconduct it doesn't do you any good (who can argue with that?)

And the last and weakest argument. But still true.

5) The existence of the rule diminishes peoples faith in the criminal justice system (not an argument that by itself would justify eliminating the exclusionary rule, but is just more weight added to all the other arguments).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What makes the US different from all other developed countries that makes us need the exclusionary rule when most other developed countrys protect civil liberties fine without it?

How do other developed countries protect against unreasonable searches and seizures?

[Replaced_Texan]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky

1) The law is not necessary. Without it we can still have a system that protects individual rights. The proof of this? Answer = No one has answered the questions of: What makes the US different from all other developed countries that makes us need the exclusionary rule when most other developed countrys protect civil liberties fine without it?

Why do we need it when all other countrys don't?

Blimey, I knew that revolution was all bosh!

God Save the Queen!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
4) The rule is only useful to you if you are guilty. If you are innocent and suffer from police misconduct it doesn't do you any good (who can argue with that?)

I can argue with that, very easily.

Let's say that the government is conducting a massive program of secret and unlawful wiretaps. Far-fetched, I know.

How would you enforce the Constitution in this circumstance? Civil damage suits? If that's your first answer, then wait until you pull your head out of your ass before giving your second answer. It's not like the government sends you an e-mail saying "Dear Spanky: For the last six months we have tapped your phone, recording your most intimate and personal conversations and even occasionally replaying them at parties (the ones with Paigow were a real hit). We did not, however, find any evidence that we might use in a prosecution, and we are sending this email to let you know the good news. If you would like to sue us, please reference the attached list of qualified counsel."

The only way that you punish such a program of unlawful evidence-gathering is by prohibiting the government from using the evidence. In the first instance, this will protect the guilty -- but only because the government has broken the law. The real effect of this should be a deterrent effect -- if the government and police are competent and law-abiding, as many truly are -- and the beneficiaries of that deterrent are the innocent, too. And society at large.

Have we paid a price for this benefit? Of course.

But, your notion that only the Exclusionary Rule benefits the guilty, while some other remedy that deters illegal searches does not, is as stupid as your TV-and-movie based arguments. Let's say that, instead of the exclusionary rule, you created a rule that said that any police officer who conducted an unlawful search would forfeit 100% of his personal assets -- but, if a police officer were willing to take that risk, the prosecution could still use the illegally evidence gathered.

If the deterrent works -- and isn't that the point? -- then guilty people will still go free, because you will inhibit the police from gathering evidence. No serious person can argue with the proposition that enforcing constitutional protections makes it harder to catch and convict criminals. But as a society, we have accepted that trade-off. The tradeoff exists, whether you enforce the constitution through the Exclusionary Rule in a single instance, or whether you deter unlawful evidence-gathering through some other mechanism; it is just more starkly apparent in the former instance.

Your dramatic statement -- that anyone who supports the Exclusionary Rule "wants murderers and child molesters to go free" -- is pure crap. The fact is that anyone who supports the Constitution has the same desire. ANY means of deterring unlawful searches -- whether the means we use here, or the means they use in one of the other countries that you've lived in and from which you've provided such valuable insights and statistics -- will, in the end, make the work of law enforcement more difficult, and will result in more criminals going free.

We've chosen liberty over security.

[Replaced_Texan]

Moussaoui trial back on, with some evidence excluded because the prosecution seems hell bent on losing this thing.

"I don't think in the annals of criminal law there has ever been a case with this many significant problems," she said.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I can argue with that, very easily.

bla blah blah (a response to my fourth point)

So now you attack my second weakest point (they are in order for a reason). Why not start with the first one and then move your way down?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
So now you attack my second weakest point (they are in order for a reason). Why not start with the first one and then move your way down?

Actually, I kinda liked Ty's question about your first point. I thought you'd have a simple answer, having practiced crim defense in two other countries and all.