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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (215638)	1/8/2002 9:53:56 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

We are not really free if we are in continual fear of public disorder. Dithers is expressing that side of the problem. Due process should not be construed so strictly that it subverts substantive justice. For example, I do not believe in the exclusionary rule. If the police have made errors, let them be sanctioned independently, do not exclude evidence with a material bearing on the truth of the case. Similarly, the 5th amendment forbids compelling testimony that is self- incriminating, but it does not say that stupid utterances are protected. The absurdity of telling people not to say anything incriminating is demonstrated by the fact that third party incrimination, such as confessions to a friend, are admissable. Thus, I think that the Miranda warning ought to be shortened to informing the suspect of his right to an attorney, even a court appointed one. I mention these as but two examples of things that are not mandated by the Constitution, per se, and which hamper the goal of finding the truth and preserving the peace unnecessarily.......

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (215638)	1/8/2002 11:13:58 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Lazarus, we probably agree on a lot of things, but this is one area where we will obviously always differ greatly. When you quote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, it is worth remembering that while the authors of those words still lived and basically ran our country: Slavery was held to be Constitutional Freed blacks were counted as three-quarters of a "person." (In determining representation in the H of R) Blacks were not allowed to vote Women were not allowed to vote *Painful confinement in a public stockade was not considered to be "cruel and unusual punishment" Later, segregation of the races was held to be Constitutional. So was the doctrine of "separate but equal," when it came to public accommodations, schools, housing, or transportation. Hotels and resorts could list themselves as "restricted," meaning no Jews, and this was not held to be something unlawful. I cite these examples to indicate that the words in our Founding documents have very little meaning in and of themselves. Interpretation of these words is everything, and these are constantly changing with the times. My general view is that present interpretations tilt too much toward protecting the rights of law-breakers, at the cost of not enough protecting of the rights of society at large to live in safety and without fear. In a society as complex as ours, mistakes will always occur in the administration of justice (due more to human frailty than malfeasance). This can lead to innocent people sometimes being unfairly (and unintentionally) victimized by the system. I view this as a regrettable, but acceptable, cost of a judicial system and process that places the highest priority on ridding our society of crime. We can always just agree to disagree, in good fellowship, on this matter. JC