4
Monday, April 1, 1991 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Official misconduct
Supreme Court's ruling on coerced confessions sends mixed message in wake of police beating
W Just wait when every station across the country has played and
What timing! Just wher
Just when every news station across the country has played and replayed the tape of Los Angeles police officers beating a traffic violator, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision last week that coerced confessions do not automatically void a conviction.
Confessions are considered to be coerced if they result, for instance, from violence against a suspect, threatened violence, extended interrogation or assurances such as "just tell us what really happened, and we'll let you go."
Although the Los Angeles incident did not result in a confession, it does illustrate the importance of laws that regulate government misconduct.
The Supreme Court said in 1967 that the use of a coerced confession always must result in reversal of a conviction.
But the justices ruled Tuesday that a coerced confession could be excused as "harmless error" if the defendant was found guilty without it.
But how can a jury find someone innocent when it has heard or read that the defendant confessed to the crime?
And how can anyone be sure that other evidence was not obtained through the coerced confession?
Justice Byron White wrote in his dissenting opinion that a coerced confession "is fundamentally different from other types of erroneously admitted evidence" that fall in the harmless-error category. He wrote, "There are some rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error."
Michigan Law professor Yale Kamisar said in a recent New York Times article, "The reason most often for throwing out coerced confessions is that no confession can be harmless. But the real reason is that the Court used to feel so strongly about this that it wanted to condemn, in the strongest terms, police threats of violence."
In reversing their 1967 ruling, the Supreme Court effectively told the police that as long as they have other evidence against a defendant, they now can use intimidation or force to get a confession without fear that their improper behavior will result in the case being thrown out.
Elicia Hill for the editorial board
Handgun-control advocates should face the Constitution
This is in response to the article "Enact the Brady Bill," which appeared in the University Daily Kansan on March 29. Congress should finally allow the Brady Bill to die.
Most gun-control advocates take comfort in the well regulated militia clause of the Second Amendment because it allows them to reason that the amendment created no individual right to own a gun. This line of thought is good enough for the American Civil Liberties Union, the bastion of the Second Amendment's emerging member of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
Such ill-conceived notions fly in the face of our nation's evolving constitutional experiences. The phrase "right of the people" appears four other times in the Bill of Rights. In all these cases, there is agreement that citizens are the right to exercise citizenship, not just some collective right of states as a whole.
American law is also deeply rooted in English common law. The most famous jurist of that tradition, Sir William Blackstone, listed in his Commentaries the "right of having and using arms of self-preservation and defense," brought to bear on Englishmen is older than the Constitution itself.
In the years between 1778 and 1783, four states adopted bills of rights specifically recognizing "the right of the people to bear arms," guarantying protection for the security of the armed populace. Though none of the other six states adopted
L. Mark
Taylor
Guest columnist
bills of rights, the political and cultural values expressed in those states were consistent with those in states with bills of rights.
There was a clear consensus among the Founding Fathers that the right of the people to bear arms was indispensable to a free republic. In Virginia, Thomas Jefferson stated, "no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." Richard Henry Lee observed that, "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess firearms."
In North Carolina, a young lawyer named James Reddell, who would go on to become a justice on the Supreme Court, wrote his mother in regard to a set of pistols she had sent him. "It is a satisfaction to have the means of Security at hand (even) if we are in no danger, as I never expect them to be attacked, unless them was not only an abstract right, but also a constant practice of the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont, led by Etha and Ira Allen.
kind in common use* among law abiding people today; (2) useful and appropriate not just for military purposes, but also for law enforcement and individual self-defense and (3) linearly descended from the kinds of laws enforced by the legislature. Clearly then, while the amendment would not protect the possession of
I will concede that this right is not absolute. Under the tripartite test established by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Malkin, the court of the ownship of arms from regulation by the federal government as: (1) "of the
'There was a clear consensus among the Founding Fathers that the right of the people to bear arms was indispensable to a free republic.'
automatic assault rifles, handguns obviously fall within the amendment's protection from federal regulation.
As Michael Kinsley has noted, the maintenance of these freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights entails social costs. This applies as equally to the Second Amendment as it does to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth. The purpose of inscribing those basic freedoms within the Bill of Rights is to prevent them in the whim of the majority. Whether the right is as vital to freedom today as it was in 1792 is completely irrelevant — the fact is that the right is still there and should not be infringed upon by Congress.
L. Mark Taylor is a Louisville, Ky., graduate student.
Supporting the Brady Bill' helps stop random violence
Ten years ago, Press Secretary James Brady was seriously injured and left disabled in John Hinckley's attack on Ronald Reagan. In the last few years, Brady's wife, Sarah, has been actively lobbying for handgun legislation. Because of Brady's high-profile position, his wife has been heard despite the lobbying efforts of strong groups opposed to gun control lead by the National Rifle Association. She has also been allowed to testify before various Congressional committees when less influential voices might not have been heard.
Congress is now debating the "Brady Bill," a piece of legislation Sarah Brady has strongly lobbied for this bill, if passed, would require a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases nationwide.
The NRA, as expected, has spoken against out against this legislation. The NRA has fought for years against any bandgun-control legislation. It would be better to let the late second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms.
This is ridiculous. The 'Brady Bill' says nothing about depriving people of the right to own weapons. What this bill actually calls for is a seven-day waiting period between the day of purchase and the day of delivery. This is a very good idea for several reasons:
- It would allow time to check for criminal records (and certain criminals are prohibited by law from possessing weapons).
- It gives the person buying the weapon time to think about why they are buying a firearm. This helps them stay focused and is often against themselves or others.
Patrick
Brungardt
Staff columnist
Murders aren't the only crime this bill would help prevent. Several years ago, a student at KU went to a gun show at the Holidome. Although Douglas County had a three-day waiting period on firearms purchases, he was able to walk out of the Holidome that day. Later that weekend, he put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger.
More than 10 years ago, a man in Leavenworth walked into a shop and bought a shotgun and shells. When the salesperson asked why he was buying them, the man said, "I'm going to blow my wife away." He then drove to the Sirion Stortford office, but that murder probably wouldn't have occurred if a bill such as the "Brady Bill" had been in place.
Not only are laws such as this needed, but they need to be uniform, which the "Brady Bill" would guarantee. A three-day waiting period in one city does no good when a nearby city does not have any sort of waiting period.
Some people say that criminals always will be able to get weapons no matter what controls the government tries to enforce. This may be true, but it also depends on how effort rather than do nothing. And while a person who really wants to commit suicide can find a way, this bill still can help prevent such trage
dies from occurring.
ture, and if she has any regrets it is probably that her mother ever found out.
I have never understood why the NRA lobbies against handgun legislation. I would assume by their name that their main focus is on rifles. Don't get me wrong, they do very well in gun safety. But if the "R" in NRA stands for rifles, they should stick to that type of weapon.
'The Brady Bill says nothing about depriving people of the right to own weapons. What this bill actually calls for is a seven-day waiting period between when a person buys a weapon and when he can pick it up.'
If the NRA wants to include handguns in their platform, then perhaps it could offer safety courses similar to the courses it offers to hunters.
Both guns and people kill people. Guns kill people when the people who have access to them have no idea as to their safe use.
Handgun safety is everyone's concern. People are killed every year because they do not know how to handle weapons safely. Others are killed because of the easy availability of weapons.
The "Brady Bill" would help reduce senseless deaths, while still guaranteeing the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
How, then, can a pregnant teen be forced to continue a pregnancy? That
I have worked as a counselor for women who have chosen to have an abortion. At that time there was no parental notification law, but it was the policy of the clinic that the woman herself had to want the abortion. If a young patient told me that her parents were forcing her to have the abortion, it was my duty to send her away without having the abortion, explaining that, for many reasons, it had to be her choice.
Patrick Brungardt is a Leavenworth senior majoring in political science.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Parental notification
I am writing in response to the article March 28, concerning the proposed Kansas parental notification bill that requires doctors to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion.
this makes me, especially the testimony of Carolyn Matlock. She is the perfect example, leaving aside the constitutional problems, of why there should not be parental notification or consent: It takes the choice out of the hands of the pregnant teen and right into the hands of the parents. This Matlock lady "mourns" for her aborted grandchild, and claims that "it still hurts my daughter." What does she expect? The pooh girl has been married to a mother, her mother's non-support of her decision for over a year. The mother apparently has finally broken the daughter down into some guilt-rufted crea-
I cannot ever explain how angry
Isn't this what choice is all about?
is the result of this statute. That would have been the result for Matlock's daughter. Either way, this girl would have suffered emotionally. Since she chose to have an abortion, she must forever be subjected to her mother's horrible badgering reaction, not to mention her public outcries. This is why any notification or consent statutes are wrong. Teens should have — must have the choice of telling their parents or not.
Julie Gorenc Lawrence law student
Shirt; tacky free speech
I would like to respond to Michaea, Breen's letter to the editor March 27. I believe one underlying theme of his letter was that of free speech vs. the freedom of responsible speech. Let's face it. The questions screaming to be answered here are: Is a shirt depicting a Ayahyk lift the tail of a cat in a gesture that quite obviously spells rape more offensive or less offensive than a shirt with a couple of letters crossed out?
Of course it does. Let's face the uncomfortable, tired fact that this difference in taste (or lack of) will
always be the most difficult aspect to address in arguments concerning the right to freely express ourselves.
Another issue with which I must differ is the belief that jumping on the proverbial bandwagon of mud-slinging is a fun, responsible form of free speech. Associating with people who "don't dish it out" is "boring"? Please! Personally, I recently have discovered that people who do dish it out (while you're the one who's expected to take it) are sadly arrogant, and associating with them can be dehumanizing, even dangerous.
KANSAN STAFF
CHRIS SIRON Editor
Amy Bush-Enos Lawrence resident
RICH CORNELL Managing editor
RICH CORNELL
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
TOM EBLEN
AUDRA LANGFORD
Business manager
MINDLUN
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Editors Business staff
News... Melanie Matthes Campus sales mgr...Sophie Wehbe
Editorial... Tiffany Harness Regional sales mgr...Carmen Dresch
Planning... Holly M. Neuman National sales mgr...Jennifer Claxton
Campus... Jennifer Reynolds Co-op sales mgr...Christine Musser
Pam Solliner Production mgrs...Rich Harbargar,
Sports... Ann Sommermath Kate Stader
Photography... Keith Thorpe Marketing director...Gall Einbinder
Graphics... Melissa Unterberg Creative director...Christy Hats
Features... Jil Hartminge Classified manager...Kim Crowder
Letters should be typed, double-space and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas have to include their telephone number.
by Tom Mlchaud
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newroom, 111 StafferFlint Hall.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
Loco Locals