Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, March 21, 2006 06:03 PM

  Pryian...the Constitution must mean something.

  >I'm not talking about cases of reasonable doubt. >That's why a criminal conviction is supposed to be >beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place. People >can lie face-to-face, too; I don't see how this >could even relate to a false-accusation issue.

  All cases that end up in court involve the question of reasonable doubt. If there was not the potential for doubt the case would have been plea-bargained earlier in the process.

  Yes, people can lie face-to-face. But 1) if you do it in court it is a crime-perjury. If you do it on a 9-11 call, or do an officer, it is not a crime (or not nearly as severe a crime). and 2) The Constitution demands this right.

  Please read the Sixth Amendment, it is an important part of our Democracy:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  Especially this:

  '...to be confronted with the witnesses against him;'

  This says nothing about the victim. This says that the defendent has the right to confront witnesses.

  Sure, the victim _is_ a witness, but it is in the role of witness that the defendent has the right of confrontation.

  This right is not optional. It is not a technicality. It is basic to our system of Justice. And frankly, I find arguments against it to be as offensive as I find arguments that we establish an official religion.

  —Rich_Gibson Read Rich_Gibson's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel