should the police have more rights to catch criminals?Or should the accused have more privacy rights?
964084
Police don't have the right to catch criminals, they have the responsibility within the framework of the US constitution. The US is the only democracy where the Exclusionary Rule voids evidence which was seized unlawfully. I believe that professional officers will almost always win over the actions of criminals. For the police, we have many more tools today than we did in the late 70's. DNA, in-car computers, video are but a few of the advances. Recent court decisions have continued to give more needed power to the police. To answer your question, I believe that it is balanced for the first time...
693678
It would depend on the individual case. If the police and/or prosecution had planted evidence or hid evidence that would have proved someones innocence, then deliberately and knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, then yes, under those circumstances I feel both criminal and civil charges should be brought against the "People". But unfortunately our law system is not perfect and even when everything is done by the book, sometimes an innocent person is found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. In those cases you cannot blame the prosecution or law enforcement, and it would be unfair to penalize them.
838802
Yes for the death penalty.!!!\nMurder,Rape,Kidnapping.!!!\nHang them all, that way criminals can learn to respect the rights of others.!!!
153456
As private citizens, you'd have to use the same methods of locating any other citizen.  Hire a PI if you are that adamant about it.  Otherwise, they are free to go wherever they want and enjoy the same right to privacy that you do.
715435
i think that anytime you do anything you should have both your fingerprint and DNA recorded, the bigger the database the larger chance of criminals being caught. even for little things like traffic tickets - at least that way there is a real database. The only people who can be caught are those whose DNA is already on record; or the police have to go and get the DNA. That would bring in the whole: Do they really need to take my DNA for a parking ticket but  the general populace should have nothing to fear - unless they are planning to do something wrong. It would just make us safer and better able to put the right people behind bars.
1031157
Yes absolutely. Kids are too precious to be put at any kind of risk, the information needs to come straight from the police in a monthly bulletin available only from police stations so innocent men or women didnt get accused. After that the real paedophiles are fair game, they deserve all and more of whats coming to them.
111405
Let's not be naive, what is right or legal will not stop those with power from learning what they want to know. Our technological advances in the field of communications have presented an irresistible opportunity for those with power to abuse our rights. Our only hope for the future is that these powers are somewhat benevolent torward us. The only place you can know,... really know, that you have privacy, is the thoughts in your head.
713403
There are no directly enumerated rights of privacy in the constitution or amendments. However the rights against unreasonable search and seizure I and to asemble peaceable are the beginnings
1136507
In a way, both yes and no.  It gives the government far greater leeway in how/when they can watch someone without a warrant.  In some cases, that prevents people from knowing they're suspected.  In other cases, the warrant would be kept a secret anyway, so the person really knows no difference.
809311
The answer, put simply, is hypocrisy.  I'm in the military and anything I do at work, from surfing the internet to my phone calls, is subject to monitoring, so I'm probably a little more comfortable with it than most, but people don't want to get caught.  For my two cents, I think innocence is its own shield.  If I'm accused of something I didn't do, I want to be searched and investigated so I'll be vindicated.  Too many people want to abuse the right to privacy to keep from getting caught doing something wrong, and its always easy to blame the cops.
5031
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state there is a right to privacy.  However, the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution offers the right implicitly.
148622
Without invading the privacy of individuals or without Unduly invading the privacy of individuals?\n\nGovernment intrusion seriously chills one's enthusiasm about personal pursuits and encouraging individual pursuits is what makes democracies such fertile ground for invention and revolutionary ideas. \n\nBut law enforcement has a natural desire to know and control all aspects of life.\n\nSo the US came up with a brilliant solution.  Privacy may be invaded by law enforcement but only if they first prove to a judge that the person is probably up to something bad.  That's not a very high standard to meet but it means that at least there's a gatekeeper looking to balance private and state interests.\n\nNo state official has ever even offered to show that this intermediate step in any way makes the nation less safe.  And they certainly have not offered to show that any such decrease in safety outweighs the harm to democratic government that accompany routine violations of ersonal privacy.
167071
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law.  What constitutes an unreasonablee search and seizure depends on the individual's expectation of privacy.\n\nAn officer couldn't just come wandering onto your property and begin digging in your trash.  On the other hand, it would be fair game once you put the trash out near the curb for pickup.  The same thing would apply if you took it to a community dumpster in an apartment complex.  It depends on the facts of the case.
221777
If the crime they committed warranted a reward I would wonder about the friends I picked.  Personally I would report them even if there wasnt a reward.  It is the right thing to do!
504947
It advised an individual being arrested of his/her legal rights.  The right to remain silent is the most important one.  Talking can easily incriminate an individual.
814322
Civil rights- we are innocent until proved guilty, and having everyone on a database would be taking the opposite stance- like, 'you are a criminal waiting to step out of line'- terrible! It could even have a reverse effect- like, 'they reckon I'm a criminal already, so why not do crime?' We still have the right to privacy to an extent, and having all our details on a database, microchipping us when we haven't done anything wrong, that be a huge violation of personal rights.\n\n Still, the biometric ID card will be similar to the system you are suggesting. We'll see if the crime rate goes down... Even if you have everyone on a database, who will monitor the people who monitor the database?
702591
They shouldn't.\n\nIt allows them too much freedom to commit new crimes and to follow their victims.\n\nThey're suppossed to be being punished, right?