Subject:
|
Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:26:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1263 times
|
| |
|
|
Duane Hess wrote:
> Even if he is not convicted, but only a suspect, his
> entire lifestyle and history will be scrutinized. To me that is still a
> forfeiture of rights, albeit temporarily and through due process.
And this is something we need to be extremely carefull of. Anyone can
become a suspect. Probing of suspects (and witnesses) must be based on
careful documentation of the expectation of finding something. Extreme
care must also be taken to keep private information private unless it is
directly relevant to a case. Extreme care must also be taken to minimize
damage to property and denial of access to property (for example, when
the murder happened in my apartment complex, the police can not seize
all the cars in the parking lot as evidence just because some lab test
might show gunpowder residue, now if they find a bullet hole in my car,
or a casing near my car, they may need to take possesion of the car for
a short while, they should also be prepared to pay for a rental for me
if they need to hold my car for any length of time and I'm not a suspect
or victim in the crime).
In general, our evidence procedures do a pretty good job, but we keep
looking for loopholes to weaken them. Fortunately every once in a while
the Supreme Court re-inforces the requirements.
We also need more pressure to immediately compensate victims of
mis-identification. Someone should NOT have to sue the government
because they got shot at by the cops because they were black and driving
in the general area of the crime (about 10 years ago, a local TV
reporter was assualted by an undercover cop because there was an APB for
a black person wearing a cap [the TV reporter was dressed buisiness
casual I believe, and not even wearing a cap] - they actually had the
gall to suggest they might have charged him with assualting the
undercover cop because when the cop came at him with a gun [not showing
a badge or wearing a uniform], he attemted to escape the situation, not
unexpectedly driving in a somewhat threatening way - please tell me how
in blazes you are supposed to know whether to run for your life from a
mugger or determine that no, that person is obviously a cop?).
To me it's also pretty ridiculous that there's actually a cap on
compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
| (...) What you are saying is very true. I was skipping over a whole lot of details (due process, search warrent, etc.) and going directly to the loss of certain rights as a convicted criminal. In jail, certain rights are removed or reduced. (At (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
