Liberals, Please defend Miranda and Illegal search and seizure

[gostros]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Defend illegal search and seasure? How about moving to Nazi Germany where police can just kick in your door any time because they feel like it? You want to throw out the constitution and live in a state where you have no power and police have all the power? I am against violence as much as anyone but without the consititution we are hozed. If you have a problem with a murderer getting off on a technicality, go off his ass...few people will cry about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was feelin' this post up until the point where you completely contradicted yourself... oh well...lol

[/ QUOTE ]

How did I contradict myself?

[/ QUOTE ]
By undermining your stated principle that we don't want a society where people can bust down your door and kill you because they want to. Do you really not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Undermining is not contradicting.

Being against goverment having the legal right to break down the door of any and all citizens on a whim is not the same thing as implying neutrality towards someone who acts as a vigilante, killing a murderer of an innocent member of society.

Do you really not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you're right...

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
Time and time again people get away with what are sometimes ghastly crimes as a result of "technicality" not guilty verdicts, liberal judges decided people should be able to get away with crimes for no reason, and liberal judges today continue to uphold that

the limp wristed arm of justice?

[/ QUOTE ]

My defense of it boils down to a dont shoot the messenger type deal. Its not a liberal judges fault that police or prosecutors or whoever cant follow the law. Law enforcement knows what they can and can not do. Get pissed at them when a rapist goes free because they cant do their job correctly.

Also, allmost all smart people, conservative or liberal, realize that its better to let some guilty people go free rather then have meaningless rights.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as other "technicalities," as others have mentioned, there is just no good alternative way to ensure that the police follow the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely false. How about punishing the officer or attorney who broke the law by demoting him or docking his pay? That would be a much more personal incentive to the officer. What about giving a civil damage remedy to someone whose rights were violated, with the damages being paid in part by the offending civil servant?

Think about the assumption underlying your point. What sort of deterrent value does the current system hold? An officer makes an arrest. A year or more later (after all the legal wrangling is done) the arrestee is set free because the officer screwed up. How much is that likely to affect the officer's life? Not much. Sure he may be pissed that a guilty person went free, but most likely, there will be no real consequences. Maybe he will receive a reprimand, but nothing too severe, because after all, he arrested the right person. In order for the exclusionary rule to have deterrent value, one must assume that police officers (especially the type likely to violate constitutional rights) have some deep emotional interest in securing convictions. That is not a very reasonable assumption.