Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree if in fact the exclusionary rule is no longer applicable.
    Well in the majority ruling, i think it was Kennedy who wrote that the search was clearly illegal, and that there were other ways to punish the police for said illegality. But the evidence could be used. Again, to me this is the most frightening part.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by ScaryHumor
    Right, ok.
    I think use of the smiley should be grounds for banning, since it's somewhat dismissive.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden
    Isn't this a political topic and should be closed?

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...5&postcount=11
    Ditto
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I think use of the smiley should be grounds for banning, since it's somewhat dismissive.
    whatever

  5. Haggar's Avatar
    Posts
    894 Posts
    Global Posts
    950 Global Posts
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    whatever

    MODS: I'm offended. Please close this thread. It's political and its divisive.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Holden
    Isn't this a political topic and should be closed?

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...5&postcount=11
    Why would this be a political topic (the discussion of laws)?

    (Im not saying it cannot dwelve into politics but at least for the most part, we are talking about the constitution and its interpretation.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well in the majority ruling, i think it was Kennedy who wrote that the search was clearly illegal, and that there were other ways to punish the police for said illegality. But the evidence could be used. Again, to me this is the most frightening part.
    That is part of the debate on the exclusionary rule. Many argue that the police might be able to be sued for illegal searches (via a tort action) but that the evidence itself should not automatically be dismissed (especially if the goal of our system of law is to discover the truth) and promote justice.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    That is part of the debate on the exclusionary rule. Many argue that the police might be able to be sued for illegal searches (via a tort action) but that the evidence itself should not automatically be dismissed (especially if the goal of our system of law is to discover the truth) and promote justice.
    The goal is truth and justice. The dilemma is, the aim of our justice system as currently practiced seems to have turned from that target, to that of execution of due process as an end unto itself.

    When truth and justice is the goal, a defense attorney will look to have an appropriate penalty for a client that has broken the law. Instead, the aim seems to be acquittal, without regard for the facts.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Why would this be a political topic (the discussion of laws)?

    (Im not saying it cannot dwelve into politics but at least for the most part, we are talking about the constitution and its interpretation.)
    There has been no change in the TOS forbidding political discussion.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    That is part of the debate on the exclusionary rule. Many argue that the police might be able to be sued for illegal searches (via a tort action) but that the evidence itself should not automatically be dismissed (especially if the goal of our system of law is to discover the truth) and promote justice.
    This is exactly was spelled out in the majority opinion of this ruling.

    Personally, if I go to jail because of an illegal search, I find no comfort in the fact that I can sue the police when i get out.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Instead, the aim seems to be acquittal, without regard for the facts.
    I think this idea goes hand in hand with 'zealous advocate'. In many ways I support it because the state has so much more resources (generally) than the average private citizen. Also there is an argument that the constitution supports it (i.e. due process clause).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This is exactly was spelled out in the majority opinion of this ruling.

    Personally, if I go to jail because of an illegal search, I find no comfort in the fact that I can sue the police when i get out.
    Fair enough but I think the point though is that if you went to jail (based on the search and seizure of the evidence) then you were actually guilty of the crime (and hence deserve the sentence).

    IMO the better argument for the exclusionary rule is the deterrence factor. If the DA knows the evidence was obtained through an illegal search/seizure, then he/she is less likely to build a case around it. This trickles down to the police. They want to collect evidence in a manner that will preserve it for trial as well.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    When truth and justice is the goal, a defense attorney will look to have an appropriate penalty for a client that has broken the law. Instead, the aim seems to be acquittal, without regard for the facts.
    If truth and justice was the goal, the defense attorney? Would look to have an appropriate penalty? Is that even what you meant to say? The defense attorney should look to have a penalty?

    And in the next sentence you are saying that the goal of our justice system is acquittal without regard for the facts?

    I wouldn't even know where to begin to counter that. I guess uh, I disagree.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Fair enough but I think the point though is that if you went to jail (based on the search and seizure of the evidence) then you were actually guilty of the crime (and hence deserve the sentence).
    How many of us would be guilty of a crime if the police were to make illegal searches of every part of our lives without regard for the evidence being excluded? Perhaps some presidents would have already been in jail. Perhaps you don't have receipts for all those donations you claimed last year etc ...

    Is this a wold we want to live in?
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think this idea goes hand in hand with 'zealous advocate'. In many ways I support it because the state has so much more resources (generally) than the average private citizen. Also there is an argument that the constitution supports it (i.e. due process clause).
    If he meant to say what he said, It seems he is confusing attorny client privledge with "zealous advocate". It seems he is suggesting that public defenders whose defendants admit guilt, should "seek punishment" for their clients.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    How many of us would be guilty of a crime if the police were to make illegal searches of every part of our lives without regard for the evidence being excluded? Perhaps some presidents would have already been in jail. Perhaps you don't have receipts for all those donations you claimed last year etc ...

    Is this a wold we want to live in?
    Im not advocating to live in that world (I like the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule and the argument that searches be reasonable under the 4th amendment).

    However, Im simply pointing out the argument many have for abolishing the exclusionary rule (i.e. without the rule, those people committed a crime and would be guilty.)

    As you state above, lots of people would likely be guilty (if you do something wrong, you should pay the penalty right?) I think the distinction though is that the warrant requires that an independent 3rd party agrees with the police that there is probable cause for the search. You don't get to the exclusionary rule until you get over the PC hurdle for the warrant.

    If the police have probable cause that I have contraband in my house and a judge agrees, then if I am searched and its recovered, doesnt justice demand I pay the penalty? As a society, don't we want people who have actually committed a crime to be accountable?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Im not advocating to live in that world (I like the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule and the argument that searches be reasonable under the 4th amendment).

    However, Im simply pointing out the argument many have for abolishing the exclusionary rule (i.e. without the rule, those people committed a crime and would be guilty.)

    As you state above, lots of people would likely be guilty (if you do something wrong, you should pay the penalty right?) I think the distinction though is that the warrant requires that an independent 3rd party agrees with the police that there is probable cause for the search. You don't get to the exclusionary rule until you get over the PC hurdle for the warrant.

    If the police have probable cause that I have contraband in my house and a judge agrees, then if I am searched and its recovered, doesnt justice demand I pay the penalty? As a society, don't we want people who have actually committed a crime to be accountable?
    Agreed, but doesn't this ruling at least pose an indirect threat to "probable cause" as well.

    After all, the ruling says that the evidence from an illegal search can still be used. Is the type of illegal search such a great distinction here? In any event, we are certainly moving in a scary direction.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    If he meant to say what he said, It seems he is confusing attorny client privledge with "zealous advocate". It seems he is suggesting that public defenders whose defendants admit guilt, should "seek punishment" for their clients.
    That's correct. Again, IF truth and justice is the aim.

    Truth and justice demands that one who has harmed another (financially or physically) ought make restitution. As a defense attorney for such a person, I want to see them punished for their crime against the soceity. However, I want to work to ensure that:

    1. Guilt is demonstrated
    2. And, if so, the punishment is appropriate, i.e. fits the crime.

    This is the job of the defense attorney. They are not to defend their clients, but to defend their clients' rights.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    ...As a society, don't we want people who have actually committed a crime to be accountable?
    We do, if we desire longevity for the society.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Agreed, but doesn't this ruling at least pose an indirect threat to "probable cause" as well.

    After all, the ruling says that the evidence from an illegal search can still be used. Is the type of illegal search such a great distinction here? In any event, we are certainly moving in a scary direction.
    Indeed. One might even call it a "slippery slope."
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions