The Fourth Amendment Isnt There To Protect Criminals

[DamianTV]

What is the Purpose of the Fourth Amendment if not to protect Criminals? Who / What is it supposed to protect us from? Does the Fourth Amendment unintionally protect Criminals? Is it outdated? Does Privacy cause you to actually be Less Safe? Feel free to reply to the specific questions or just express your own opinion.

Debate.

[Contumacious]

What is the Purpose of the Fourth Amendment if not to protect Criminals? Who / What is it supposed to protect us from? Does the Fourth Amendment unintionally protect Criminals? Is it outdated? Does Privacy cause you to actually be Less Safe? Feel free to reply to the specific questions or just express your own opinion.

Debate.

Immaterial.

The Fourth Amendment was abolished by SCOTUS.

They concluded that it was very very difficult to operate a nice police state when it was valid.

.

[aGameOfThrones]

Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.

Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.

William Roper: There is: God's law.

Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

[Acala]

The Fourth Amendment was designed to be a strict limit on the power of government to invade the privacy of ALL citizens.

When the SCOTUS created the exclusionary rule, the unintended (probably) consequence was the destruction of the Fourth Amendment. For those who are unfamiliar with the terminology, the exclusionary rule excludes evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment. While this might seem like a measure that protects the fourth amendment, and Justice Brennan probably intended it that way, it turns out to be the worst thing to ever happen to the fourth amendment because it insures that the only time the fourth amendment is tested in court, it is on behalf of a convicted criminal.

In other words, the exclusionary rule made sure that the champions of the fourth amendment in the courts would always be among the least popular people. So again and again the courts were put under pressure to weaken the fourth amendment in order to sustain the conviction of some louse.

If the exclusionary rule had never been created, Fourth Amendment law might very well have been dominated by cases of cops breaking into the homes of the innocent. And because those plaintiffs would be much more appealing champions of the cause, the result over time might have been very different.

Additionally, I don't see why a real criminal should go free because the cops blundered. Let the criminal sue the cops for the vilation of his rights, but make the criminal pay restitution to whoever HE screwed over. Of course this assumes crimes with real victims.

[DamianTV]

So drug laws shouldnt be afforded being excluded from the 4th? (yes, Im egging you on)

[Acala]

So drug laws shouldnt be afforded being excluded from the 4th? (yes, Im egging you on)

There shouldn't be any laws pertaining to what drugs a person makes, owns, uses or sells. Trying to make drug laws less onerous by using the fourth amendment to exclude evidence has only resulted in weakening the fourth amendment. And the drug laws have only gotten harsher.

[DamianTV]

So what other reasons could the Founding Fathers have possibly conceived of when the wrote and agreed on the Fourth Amendment?

(general question for everyone)

[torchbearer]

the 4th amendment is there to tell the federal government what it can't do(or must do).
it was written for the government(criminals)- to keep them restrained.
it was not written for any person outside of government.

[Christian Liberty]

The Fourth Amendment was designed to be a strict limit on the power of government to invade the privacy of ALL citizens.

When the SCOTUS created the exclusionary rule, the unintended (probably) consequence was the destruction of the Fourth Amendment. For those who are unfamiliar with the terminology, the exclusionary rule excludes evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment. While this might seem like a measure that protects the fourth amendment, and Justice Brennan probably intended it that way, it turns out to be the worst thing to ever happen to the fourth amendment because it insures that the only time the fourth amendment is tested in court, it is on behalf of a convicted criminal.

In other words, the exclusionary rule made sure that the champions of the fourth amendment in the courts would always be among the least popular people. So again and again the courts were put under pressure to weaken the fourth amendment in order to sustain the conviction of some louse.

If the exclusionary rule had never been created, Fourth Amendment law might very well have been dominated by cases of cops breaking into the homes of the innocent. And because those plaintiffs would be much more appealing champions of the cause, the result over time might have been very different.

Additionally, I don't see why a real criminal should go free because the cops blundered. Let the criminal sue the cops for the vilation of his rights, but make the criminal pay restitution to whoever HE screwed over. Of course this assumes crimes with real victims.

+1

[torchbearer]

the 4th amendment doesn't grant protections or rights. the constitution bestows no rights. your rights precede the law. it is assumed.
the document is a rule book for the government.
the very fact that people think their rights to be secure come from the 4th amendment is 90% of the problem.

[DamianTV]

(Im playing devils advocate here, and actually trolling just a little bit...)

So the Bill of Right only enumerates, or lists some specific inalienable Rights that the Govt is restricted by requiring Govt to respect only those enumerated rights then? ANd just because Govt doesnt respect ones Rights doesnt mean we still have them or that they've magically disappeared into the Legal Ether?