From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:48:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.002140.1721@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com writes:
>pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.020652.18270@mtek.com> bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>>>Left again. The power of the IRS to make such seizures was certainly
>>>*not* promolgated by the Rehnquist Court. That issue was settled at
>>>a time before either of us was born,

>>My reference to the Rehnquist Court was sparked by several decisions
>>they have made which tend to increase the prosecutorial powers of the
>>state as against individual liberty. For example, the 'good faith'
>>exception to the exclusionary rule.

>I may be on unclear ground, here, but wasn't the very notion of an
>'exclusionary rule' a creature of the Warren Court -- *no* evidence
>by discovery having previously been excluded for any reason? To move
>partially back toward that position can hardly be argued as contrary
>to the historical position of the Court during the century and a half
>preceeding.

While it is certainly true that the Court hasn't always followed the
exclusionary rule, it does NOT follow from that that it was okay to do so?

>[Contrary to evident popular opinion, "individual liberty" has never
>been threatened on the occasion that *guilty* people end up in the
>dock! This may not be the politically correct view, but it is a fact,
>no less.]

>If evidence obtained by search fails to evidence any such guilt, then
>no harm has been done to individual liberty. If it *does* sufficiently

Really?  So if the police kick in your door for no reason -- perhaps
they're doing it to every house on the block -- and search through the
entire place while holding you and your family at gunpoint, and you haven't 
done anything wrong, your liberty hasn't been harmed?

You would have *liked* Stalin.

>(to convince a jury) compel conviction, then neither has individual
>liberty been harmed, since such liberty can only be exercised by all
>when actual criminal behavior by the few is prosecuted.

>If someone ends up in the dock and is subsequently convicted based
>on evidence that is false, then that is a different problem. And one[
>not particularly mitigated by an absolute exclusionary rule. Which
>begs the question as to what purpose such exclusion serves, except
>to make conviction of factual criminals more difficult: hardly an
>outcome promoting exercise of *actual* (as compared to theoretical)
>individual liberty.

The exclusionary rule protects our *rights*, like the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects...

>Somewhere, sometime we are compelled to address the question of
>what is the real effect of our laws on the main society at large.
>And whether conditions in our society indicate that it is becoming
>more or less possible to enjoy individual liberties. If more, then
>we have made good changes to the mechanics of the law. If less so,
>then we need to move back from changes made and consider retrench-
>ment until our wisdom has been increased in the fullness of time.

>Lawful citizens of our cities are not living behind closed doors
>with multiple locks and refusing to walk their own streets because
>police are misusing the exclusionary rule in dealing with the
>"technicals"* in our society. People live in fear partly because
>of a relentless idea which took form in the sixties that is with us
>still: citizenship is about exercising "rights", and "behaviors"
>don't matter so long as the most tenuous argument can be made that
>some infringement of those rights, in even the smallest degree,
>may have occurred during the course of an arrest or prosecution.

We hold these truths to be self evident... that all men are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights, unless Bud decides we
really don't need them.

Nope, I don't think it's quite as catchy.

I think people live in fear because our government is supporting -- no, 
subsidizing -- gang warfare.

I think before the 1960s, people lived in fear that the government was
going to kick down their doors, call them communist, and throw them in
jail.  Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration, but the point is, that this
mythical time when we were 'safe,' before the EvilLiberals got to our
society, is just that, a myth.

>Any comparison to other well-functioning democracies (some no less
>venerable than our own) demonstrates that we have become downright
>silly by any practical standard of law when it comes to dealing
>with criminals. And what goes on in the streets and elsewhere in
>this society proves it conclusively by the evidence of the hardest
>possible reality.

Yes, civil liberties are downright silly.

>-----------------
>* I expect to see this name adopted soon by one of our newer
>  street gangs, since this major growth industry in the U.S.
>  has begun to diminish the available supply of catchy, "with-
>  it" names so necessary to keep us advised of which is which.

As far as I can tell, our major street gangs still go by names like
"DEA" and "IRS."
 
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky alt.activism:20237 talk.environment:5393