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.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (14538)	11/29/1997 7:14:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Bill, You may think that Miranda is insanely permissive, but in Europe, Miranda is seen as insanely permissive to the police. For instance, as we were recently reminded, In France you can't search someone's house without them being present. Without some similar restriction on searches you end up with police going through your stuff if they want to whenever you aren't home, or as often as they want to. In the USSR and China and other countries where this has been allowed this resulted in many many horiffic side effects. Yet Europe is the place with the low crime rate and dictatorships, which have the most freedom for police action, generally have enormous crime rates. So I don't think you have a case there. On the other hand, the combination of the three strikes law and the renewed death penalty enforcement in California has shown that serious punishment after having been proved guilty has a truly dramatic effect on rates of crime (over 45% in two years so far and still moving.) The sane (strict) regulation of all drugs, making them too cheap to support corruption but hard to obtain for some people (minors) combined with bans on advertising and public education campaigns and treatment centers seems to me the way to go. This would involve nationalizing the distribution business as the liquor distribution business has been taken over in many states. Not only would you save a 100 billion a year, more or less, but the government would have income from which to pay for the civil enforcement, treatment centers, anti-drug rpopaganda, and so on. Meanwhile one nice side effect would be cleaner police departments and half-empty prisons where you could encarcerate every violent criminal for a nice long time without ever building another jail. Few broken families would result (you could let a half million nonviolent drug offenders out of prison), and the street gangs would lose their means of support. A lot of people are thinking the same way about this, both from the right and the left. It remains to move the drug establishment to this position: The career enforcement officers, the polititcians, the tobacco investors, the safeway stores, etc. Chaz

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (14538)	12/2/1997 11:45:00 AM
From: John Donahoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

RE: "John; That is not a discovered fact, it is a forced admission by interrogation, and I would draw the line somewhat before that area." If a lawman hears testimony that is material to a case is it not allowed as evidence? It may not be called a "fact" but it has the same if not more impact then physical evidence when, as in the OJ case, is used to build a circumstantial case. The real issue here is protection of our civil rights which should be a greater priority then whether or not we get drug pushers in jail. JD