Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kennyo
What does that have to do with admissable evidence?

A trial is meant to bring out the truth. Like most conservatives I am very skeptical about the exclusionary rule, which has the effect of excluding the jury from knowing the truth. If you have not committed a crime, real evidence will not lead to your conviction. The best way to avoid conviction for a crime is not to commit a crime.

95 posted on 08/21/2002 12:11:01 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
A trial is meant to bring out the truth. Like most conservatives I am very skeptical about the exclusionary rule, which has the effect of excluding the jury from knowing the truth. If you have not committed a crime, real evidence will not lead to your conviction. The best way to avoid conviction for a crime is not to commit a crime.

.And that holds for police officers,too.Don't violate anyone's rights and you won't have to "do the time".I too am skeptical of the exclusionary rule,and believe one way to solve that problem would be to hold officers that obtain evidence illegally be held to answer personally for it,either criminally,civilly,or both.

96 posted on 08/21/2002 10:08:12 AM PDT by kennyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson