The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So those Catholic schools, they've got enough extra capacity to take anyone who knocks at the door? And they will take anyone who knocks at the door? And, like, if the kid isn't Catholic, they're all like cool and stuff with the kid not doing the religious stuff?

Or is religious freedom only for those who can afford it?

I have already stated for the record that I am against vouchers. But you have to be honest about the negative effects of any policy you espouse.

Catholic schools do an amazing job of educating lower middle class and even poor students. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the positive aspects of vouchers do not outweigh the negative effects some of which have already been pointed out and others that I think are quite obvious.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Same with the exclusionary rule. If you favor the exclusionary rule then you favor a system that will let clearly guilty murderers and child molesters go if their rights have been violated.

In the real world, problems with evidence usually result in lesser plea bargains, rather than "clearly guilty murderers and child molesters go". I know, it's a horrible thing to think about what really happens, but hey.

That said, until someone proposes a reasonable alternative to the exlusionary rule that protects the rights that Americans expect, then I'm in favor of it. If that means that, on occasion (very rare occasions in my experience -- and those who are not later arrested again would be even more rare), guilty people go free, then that's a trade-off I accept.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Every position you take does has negative consequences. Balt seems to get angry when these obvious consequences of liberal positions are exposed.

I think Balt is angry because your definition of liberal looks ONLY to the negative consequence.

Am I in favor of letting child molesters run free? According to you, I am, because I favor the exclusionary rule. Thus, a liberal is a supporter of child moleters

By that logic, a conservative is someone who believes that the Fourth Amendment has no application, that police should be allowed to enter any home in America or search any person anytime they want, and that obtaining confessions through torture is a legitimate law enforcement technique. Right? Isn't that the "obvious consequence" of rejecting the exclusionary rule, when you have no alternative in place?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
those who are not later arrested again would be even more rare

It's all free!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's all free!

You're thinking that, when there is clear evidence that someone is a murderer and that piece of evidence is excluded, the police no longer keep track of the person?

Sorry -- I assumed you might be"thinking" My bad.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's all free!

You've been hanging out with DeLay again, haven't you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

That said, until someone proposes a reasonable alternative to the exlusionary rule that protects the rights that Americans expect, then I'm in favor of it. If that means that, on occasion (very rare occasions in my experience -- and those who are not later arrested again would be even more rare), guilty people go free, then that's a trade-off I accept.

I hate the exclusionary rule. It makes no sense. But then I say the right solution is that if some cop violates someone's constitutional rights, you should just jail the cop. And the pansy-assed conservatives won't let that happen.

Just one liberal's view.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You're thinking that, when there is clear evidence that someone is a murderer and that piece of evidence is excluded, the police no longer keep track of the person?

Sorry -- I assumed you might be"thinking" My bad.

No. I meant that if a murderer or child molester is arrested again then someone else has been murderer or molested. I wasn't really taking a position on the rule, just pointing to your off-hand comment that seems to discount another life being ruined by the rule.

As to who isn't thinking on this board- it's pretty clear to me that spanky comes here out of boredom and makes borderline outrageous statements and then you all argue with him as if he really believes the things he says. When you all argue with him and he's doing it, do you feel good because you're "winning?"

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I hate the exclusionary rule. It makes no sense. But then I say the right solution is that if some cop violates someone's constitutional rights, you should just jail the cop. And the pansy-assed conservatives won't let that happen.

Just one liberal's view.

I'd fine 'em, not jail 'em. Other than the ones who commit actual crimes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd fine 'em, not jail 'em. Other than the ones who commit actual crimes.

if you chopped off a finger with each bad arrest, pretty soon they'd have to start being more careful, or they wouldn't be able to hold a gun anymore.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

As to who isn't thinking on this board- it's pretty clear to me that spanky comes here out of boredom and makes borderline outrageous statements and then you all argue with him as if he really believes the things he says. When you all argue with him and he's doing it, do you feel good because you're "winning?"

So, what's wrong with that?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I hate the exclusionary rule. It makes no sense. But then I say the right solution is that if some cop violates someone's constitutional rights, you should just jail the cop. And the pansy-assed conservatives won't let that happen.

Just one liberal's view.

Didn't you retire?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Didn't you retire?

A couple of times. But planting season is weeks away and there's nothing good around to read. I need a trip to the bookstore.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd fine 'em, not jail 'em. Other than the ones who commit actual crimes.

I think a law making it a crime to violate someone's constitutional rights makes sense. There's always that troublesome intent problem, but most of the time in these case I'll bet intent is pretty clear (Officer, did you intend to search the house without a warrant, or did it just happen accidentally?).

So jail 'em. Don't coddle 'em.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think a law making it a crime to violate someone's constitutional rights makes sense. There's always that troublesome intent problem, but most of the time in these case I'll bet intent is pretty clear (Officer, did you intend to search the house without a warrant, or did it just happen accidentally?).

So jail 'em. Don't coddle 'em.

Well, you'd have to prove specific intent to violate their rights, but putting that aside, I doubt that the police actually intend to violate rights in the majority of exclusionary rule cases. I suspect that in many instances they thought they were acting under one of the exceptions allowing immediate search and seizure (plain view; exigent circumstances) later found by a court not to have been adequately established.

I know that exclusionary rule cases make for great story lines on tv, but do you think cops are regularly busting down doors just hoping to find evidence of a crime?