Re: OJ Simpson and the Question of Blami

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Richard L. Warms: "Students of White"
• Previous message: Douglas B Hanson: "InterNIC Scout Report"

Nataraj writes in reply to my post:

"In your example teh "evidence"
is before teh trial, and thius guilt is NOT incontrivertably proven.
Police are not above doctoring evidence to ensure an arrest, and we
all need to be protected from that kind of abuse of power. If a piece
of evidence is that compelling, the police ought to MAKE sure tehy do
everything by the book. If they cannot, they are not fit to discharge
their duty to the citizens of teh state."

Nataraj completely misses the point. CURRENTLY, the means for ensuring that
the police do not violate the 4th amendment is to dismiss evidence that has
been improperly obtained EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE WOULD, IN FACT, ESTABLISH
GUILT INCONTROVERTABLY. The point I was raising was: (1) society has an
interest in assuring that the guilty are apprehended, convicted and jailed
and (2) that interest is not taken into account in current procedures. The
question then, is: Is there any means OTHER than supprssion of evidence, to
ENSURE that 4th amendment rights are not being violated, WITHOUT denying the
interest of society in ensuring that the guilty be jailed and the innocent be
set free. I then suggested another route by which this might be achieved,
namely through punishing the prosecutor for introducing such evidence.

D. Read
READ@ANTHRO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU

• Next message: Richard L. Warms: "Students of White"
• Previous message: Douglas B Hanson: "InterNIC Scout Report"