Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (1800)	9/11/1999 8:50:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6418

The issue is: Would today's conservatives agree that the 60's and 70's liberals were absolutely right that measures should be taken to restrain overzealous police, even if this sometimes leads to a situation that appears to favor "criminals" or "suspects"? I would say no. I think most conservatives would say that the police should be restrained, but NOT at the cost of benefiting criminals. For example: rather than the exclusionary rule, unlawful searches should be dealt with as torts. If cops were successfully charged a couple of times with violating the constutional rights of citizens, there would be a major diminution in unlawful searches and seizures. OTOH, the hypertechnical rules the Court puts on street cops can get to the point of absurdity. If you do criminal law, you know what I'm talking about.