Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Touched a nerve, apparently.

Thanks for calling my post moronic. Coming from you, that must have given everyone on this board a laugh.

Its quite an accomplishment to be so admired by people similarly delusionally out of touch isn't it? You should go post on DU, you would be a God.

Of course, here or there, you and the rest of the liberal losers will remain out of touch with the real America.

How's that draft Hillary campaign coming?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


As a former prosecutor, I have to say, Spanky, that your purely theoretical argument seems to be pretty far divorced from reality. I've kept quiet so far, but you're making no darn sense.

This is not some wild theory I am throwing out. If I am making no darn sense then why are we the only developed nation with the excusionary rule?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not some wild theory I am throwing out. If I am making no darn sense then why are we the only developed nation with the excusionary rule?

Why are we the only Western democracy with the death penalty?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Individuals hold far less power than the state. Why hold prosecutors to a brd standard? Surely, that allows a guilty person to go free every once in a while. Why not get rid of it.

I just find that there are many large organizations that can be pretty scary. Companies like Enron scare me just a much as local the local police. I don't mind holding Enron and the government to the same standard.

Rich people hire private investigators all the time to investigate the murder or abuse of people they care about. The private detectives often do a much better job because they can run roughshod over the constitutional protections. Why do private investigators from large private detective agencies get more latitude than the cops (I know what the canned answer is) but in this day in age it just seems to be ridiculous.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why are we the only Western democracy with the death penalty?

and why don't we use the corpses for stem cell research?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm not sure how i feel about that, to be honest. Calling a fat guy fat is wrong, except coming from another fat guy.

Well, what do you do when a fat guy calls a skinny kid fat? Me, I would laugh. That's my point.

Oh, I almost forgot - weightist fuck.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not some wild theory I am throwing out. If I am making no darn sense then why are we the only developed nation with the excusionary rule?

We're America, damn it! We're the best. We have the best system in the world. Why do you insist that we follow the lead of a bunch of weakling foreigners with poor hygiene and bad teeth.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Well, what do you do when a fat guy calls a skinny kid fat? Me, I would laugh. That's my point.

Oh, I almost forgot - weightist fuck.

when fringey called me a troll I ignored her.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We're America, damn it! We're the best. We have the best system in the world. Why do you insist that we follow the lead of a bunch of weakling foreigners with poor hygiene and bad teeth.

S_A_M

Normally I would agree with you. But I think that if you charged the police $100,000 for every illegal search and also dock the paycheck of the cops there would not be that many illegal searches.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why are we the only Western democracy with the death penalty?

I am against the death penalty, except for foreign combatants and enemies, like that filthy sub-human ululating Palestinian whore.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and why don't we use the corpses for stem cell research?

Or use the skin for cosmetics?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when fringey called me a troll I ignored her.

2. She is land of fu. Dead to me.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Normally I would agree with you. But I think that if you charged the police $100,000 for every illegal search and also dock the paycheck of the cops there would not be that many illegal searches.

If you could ever get that passed into law, I might agree with you. (I suspect there might be other unintended consequences.) You could also do this in _addition_ to the exclusionary rule, to properly incentivize the public servants.

However, my point was simply that I really do think that the exclusionary rule reduces the number of illegal searches and seizures, and thus is beneficial. There may be other ways to get to that result -- but I can't think of others that a Court can establish and enforce.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

How have I contradicted myself? On this topic, I asked a single question, because I was curious what your answer would be. WTF?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


However, my point was simply that I really do think that the exclusionary rule reduces the number of illegal searches and seizures, and thus is beneficial. There may be other ways to get to that result -- but I can't think of others that a Court can establish and enforce.

S_A_M

There is no question the exclusionary rule reduces the amount of illegal searches and seizures but the price is too high. It completely undercuts confidence in the legal system. It encourages vigilantism and cynicism.

When the system ignores truth the result is bad. If you really don't want there to be illegal searches and seizures penalize the people that are doing the illegal stuff. And the more you don't like what they are doing the stiffer you make the penatly. If a cop punches you, you can sue and get compensation. If he trespasses in your house you should get the same sort of compensation. Society should determine how heinous the crime is by the penalty dished out.

Just throwing out the evidence is too arbitrary. That solution is not really taylored to specifically punish the crime without any collateral damage.

But a court should never throw out probative evidence.