Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!tandem!jimbo From: jimbo@tandem.com (Jim Lyon) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: <1991May8.041414.8175@tandem.com> Date: 8 May 91 04:14:14 GMT References: <1991Apr28.120019.18645@neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@tandem.com Organization: Tandem Computers, Inc. Lines: 17 Nntp-Posting-Host: suntan.tandem.com In article peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter Creath) proposes changing the law relating to misconduct on the part of the police or prosecution so that a defendent can be convicted in spite of misconduct, and that the misconduct be treated as an entirely separate case. This, generally, was the law in the country prior to about 1960. Somehow, prosecutors were always too busy with other cases to bother prosecuting the police for misconduct [not to mention bringing cases against other prosecutors]. Essentially, the system did not work. The present rule, in which the fruits of illegal searches or coerced confessions are disallowed, was formulated exactly to stop those illegal searches from happening in the first place. It seems to have been moderately successful [at least prior to the current supreme court]. -- Jim Lyon, jimbo@Tandem.Com "... where the work is NonStop, and we do everything twice."