Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Ah so it's maintenance of the staus quo that makes this okay. So I assume you're against the right of women to vote, after all that was a step to fix an injustice that was present in the legal/rights system at a certain point in time.
I would love, but don't actually expect, a response to the question of what exactly is lost by allowing counsel to be present at the questioning phase. What's the harm? Anyone? Bueller?
|
That's what it boils down to for me as well. Where is the problem with allowing citizens to seek counsel when being questioned? What is the end game on part of the police? So that a judge somewhere down the line gets to determine if coercion was used or not? How about we just eliminate that possibility from the get go?
Intimidation is real tactic used by law enforcement, no one can question that. Whether or not one should be forced to be subjected to it (should it be used) is not something a free society should even have to consider IMO. LE has all the resources, experience, and tactics it needs to properly investigate crimes and determine who did it.
Average joe has ONE way to defend himself, through the use of an attorney who is the expert on what the police already know/do/use. Allow him to use that as he sees fit, and IMO that begins the second a cop starts asking questions.