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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (8166)	12/4/2001 7:20:49 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 93284

It is important that the rules we use are tailored to the specific situation. This Administration has no particular responsibility for the positions of other Administrations, and, in addition, this is an unusual situation, because we are essentially trying to deal with war criminals in an expeditious manner. I am generally of the opinion that we do not allow enough information to flow to the jury, putatively in the interests of "fairness", but really to maintain the bias favorable to the defendant. For example, I think it is reasonable to introduce prior bad acts, insofar as it is a factor in assessing the probability of the defendant having been the culprit. I think showing the heinousness of an attack, for example, as an element of rebuttal of the defendant's account of what transpired, is legitimate. I also dislike the exclusionary rule. I think that officers can be sanctioned separately for procedural violations, but that material evidence ought not to be ignored. Even if there is a possibility of tainted evidence, let the defense argue its case, for example, that the evidence was planted, and leave it at that. So I start with a bias towards comprehensive information, including some things that might currently be excluded as hearsay, to begin with. When the jury pool is better than the average for a civilian court, in terms of education and civic- mindedness, I would go even farther in letting them decide issues of credibility for themselves. Without knowing the particulars of the rules that will be laid down, as yet, I cannot say with more precision if there is anything to be alarmed about. So far, though, I am not so alarmed........