Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Legal Loopholes -- exclusionary rule
Message-ID: <3314@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 14:45:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3314
Posted: Mon Jul 16 14:45:01 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jul-84 06:12:18 EDT
References: <426@teldata.UUCP>, <1077@elsie.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 22

There's a point here that seems to be being ignored in the discussion of
recent Supreme Court decisions on the use of evidence. These decisions
are not redoing the basic Constitutional principles; they are modifying
earlier Supreme Court decisions.

"Loosening" the allowability of evidence is not taking the American legal
system back to pre-Revolutionary European monarchical standards -- it is
just undoing fairly recent "tightening" of such allowability by
other Court decisions within this very century. The legal system in this
country worked fine fifty years ago; justice was done at least as often
as it is done now, and it was the best in the world then. Things 
deteriorated with an emphasis on technicalities over basic principles,
and recognition of this fact is resulting in a necessary correction,
which is merely a return to previously-existing standards.

Just because there is change within your lifetime does not mean that
this is an endless or permanent trend; these institutions can only
be evaluated with a viewpoint spanning centuries.

In other words, don't sweat it. 

Will