Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!akgua!sb1!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.movies
Subject: Re: Karen Silkwood
Message-ID: <213@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jan-84 08:04:36 EST
Article-I.D.: mb2c.213
Posted: Tue Jan 17 08:04:36 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jan-84 07:31:35 EST
References: <767@ut-sally.UUCP> <3117@utcsrgv.UUCP> ut-sally.780
Lines: 14

I am really tired of hearing that a criminal defendant got off
because of a legal technality.  These so called technalities
usually infringe upon our Constitutional Rights.  All citizens,
including criminal defendants, are entitled to Due Process of law,
under the 14th Amendment, and protection against unreasonable
search and seizure, under the 4th Amendment.  Maybe the press
is capable of publicizing many (more than one) cases where a
defendant, who is guilty as sin apparently, gets off.  But in the
long run, these rights inure to the benefit of other less culpable
defendants.  
Maybe a lynch mob test should be taken.  If the lynch mob would 
prefer to take actions into their own hands, then our Constitutional
Rights should not apply. (and vice versa)
(This is only a sarcastic editorial.)