On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:29:30 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:36:08 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:57:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:



I'd prefer that prosecutors uphold the letter and the spirit of the law,
and not twist and bend them when it suits their purpose.

I think *most* prosecutors do uphold the letter of the law.
Unfortunately, though, more than a few don't. I've thought that if some
innocent bozo spends time in jail because of prosecutor malfeasance, if
caught, the prosecutor should spend at least an equal time in the can.
Railroading an innocent, for what is generally no more than political
ambition, is in my mind a high crime.


I would generally agree, but I would also add that leveraging the law
to allow an otherwise guilty person to walk free on a "technicality"
is equally deplorable.

Evidence, is evidence, no matter how it's obtained. If it's pertinent,
then it should be allowed regardless of whether the cop found it in a
place he wasn't supposed to be looking......

Dave


Well, there goes the rule of law.
Really, Dave, you'd be much happier living in the old Sov Union, or
Hitler's Germany, or George Bush's future vision of America.

It's really quite simple. If people are easily proven guilty, then
they should be incarcerated. They should not have credible evidence
thrown out on technicalities, thereby placing a danger to society back
on the street.

If there is a question as to the validity of the evidence itself,
that's one thing. But if the evidence IS valid, then how it was
obtained should be irrelevant.

Dave

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:53:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:29:50 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:52:16 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:



thunder wrote:


On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:57:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:





I'd prefer that prosecutors uphold the letter and the spirit of the law,
and not twist and bend them when it suits their purpose.


I think *most* prosecutors do uphold the letter of the law.
Unfortunately, though, more than a few don't. I've thought that if some
innocent bozo spends time in jail because of prosecutor malfeasance, if
caught, the prosecutor should spend at least an equal time in the can.
Railroading an innocent, for what is generally no more than political
ambition, is in my mind a high crime.


Well, it happens all the time.


No, it doesn't happen *all* the time. It happens far less that you'd
probably believe.

Dave


Prove it.


Ah, the old "argumentum ad ignorantium". You are asking me to prove a
negative? Sorry sonny boy, but the burden of proof is on you to
provide those cases where prosecutors are corrupt "all the time".

You made the claim, so YOU have to prove it.

Dave


I can cite case after case after case of police, prosecutor, and FBI
malfeasance.

Assuming this is true, it is STILL a minority of the total number of
cases. Far from "doing it all the time".

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:52:16 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:57:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:



I'd prefer that prosecutors uphold the letter and the spirit of the
law,
and not twist and bend them when it suits their purpose.


I think *most* prosecutors do uphold the letter of the law.
Unfortunately, though, more than a few don't. I've thought that if
some
innocent bozo spends time in jail because of prosecutor malfeasance,
if
caught, the prosecutor should spend at least an equal time in the can.
Railroading an innocent, for what is generally no more than political
ambition, is in my mind a high crime.


Well, it happens all the time.

No, it doesn't happen *all* the time. It happens far less that you'd
probably believe.

It happens as much as harry takes rides in his 36' lobsta boat


Dave