Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Bastille mentality alive and well in USA
Message-ID: <365@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Nov-84 12:28:19 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.365
Posted: Mon Nov 26 12:28:19 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Nov-84 04:18:13 EST
References: <3@vax2.fluke.UUCP> <259@spp2.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 40

> I think they probably feel like they are already involved in a war.
> When the courts seem more concerned with technicalities than with
> guilt or innocence, when convicted criminals are released again and
> again to repeat their crimes, where does the law-abiding citizen turn
> for relief or protection.  Couple that with the current atmosphere
> regarding firearms and personal responsibility for self-defense and it
> just might seem like a victory that the death penalty (NOT capital
> punishment - that is a null concept) is once again being applied.  
> 
>  jhull@spp2.UUCP			Jeff Hull
 
This is an old argument- because the accused rights have been granted 
protection under the Warren Court decisions that criminals right and
left are being released due to "mere technicalities". However this is
not true.  Criminologists and students of the legal system have found that
in fact only about one case in several thousand ever gets thrown out
because of "technicalities".  We should also remember that such "technicalities"
as the requirement to have a search warrant, the right to legal counsel,
the dismissal of illegally acquired evidence (such as that obtained
by wiretaps) protects ALL of our rights and also protects us from the type of
police state practiced by the Soviet Union and other countries where
the noble rights proclaimed in their Constitution are regularly violated.
While it is true that some criminals do go free because our system protects
the rights of the accused, the precentage is miniscule and well-worth the
protection to the innocent provided by such a system.
If we truly wished to protect ourselves from rampant violence we would enact
effective gun control laws.  Rather than *protecting* themselves from 
criminal violence, gun owners are more likely to be killed by the family
members and friends their weapons are supposed to protect than from
unknown criminals. (Science 84  just had an interesting article on this issue)
Personally I see no reason that policemen should have guns.
They could accomplish the same objectives with tranquilizer guns --besides
saving many innocent people killed by policement with guns ,tranquilizer
guns would make policemen less hesitant to fire at fleeing suspects.
Certainly it would be possible to develop such a device if our society put
its mind to it.  But our society's only approach to violence is to promote
further violence rather than applying ourselves to creative ways to actually
*prevent* violence.
 
tim sevener whuxl!orb