`` The bill would allow reliable hearsay and potentially coerced testimony to be used as evidence in court ´´
excerpted from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
2006-09-06 21:59:29 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yes
2006-09-06 22:00:59 · answer #1 · answered by nadinenadz123 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It's very troubling, to anyone who cares about the constitution.
The bill attempts to create a new hearsay exception, to allow in statements obtained through torture and other forms of harsh interrogation.
The problem is, throughout history, torture has always been considered unreliable as a means of extracting information, because subjects will say anything to please their captors.
It violates the text of the 5th Amendment self-incrimination clause ("shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself"), the heart of the Due Process clause, and throws out 6th Amendment guarantees of a fair trial. It's just another example of the way Bush is raping the constitution for his own power trip.
2006-09-07 06:22:13 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey Jacartamonkey - thanks for bringing this to the attention of at least a few people.
I'm definitely concerned. For one thing, "reliable hearsay" is basically why we got ourselves into a jam in Iraq in the first place, that is, by listening to hearsay about WMD.
With regard to your previous question, human testimony has proven time and again to be unreliable. Human testimony about other human testimony (which is what hearsay is) is at a still higher level of inaccuracy. Basically you have two faulty filters distorting the original evidence.
It has been repeatedly shown by psychological researchers that people's recollections are influenced by their personal prejudices and by the unconscious wishes of their interrogators.
2006-09-06 22:34:13 · answer #3 · answered by Tom D 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes this concerns me. I understand that some people would consider this useful in catching criminals, but what about innocent people accused of a crime they didn't commit. I think the truth is better from the source and without coercion thank you very much...very good point.
2006-09-06 22:12:36 · answer #4 · answered by frogspeaceflower 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is concerning, but I am sure it is nothing new...
Much as we would like to imagine that our justice system is fine and dandy, you would do well to remember that corruption, violence and outright torture have been utilized by most societies for hundreds and hundreds of years, so why assume we have now stopped?
Of course the days of the rack, the thumb screws and iron maiden are over, I am sure they (the bill) are not above terrorizing the occasional suspect to get the required confession.
2006-09-06 22:03:57 · answer #5 · answered by HP 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no I don't, there are already to many laws out there to protect the criminals when I don't think they should have any rights or any laws protecting them, if they have commited a crime then there should be no way for them to walk free, I guess in the long run maybe it will work out so criminals might think twice about commiting a crime, it would make a lot nicer and safer life for the law abiding citizens of the world
2006-09-06 22:03:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I don't understand it so I can't be bothered to be concerned over it.
2006-09-06 22:01:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋