It’s not hugely different from the long-standing doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, so I’m not sure I agree it’s substantive.
Ted killed Bill? Man, now there’s no way that Wyld Stallyns will ever get back together. Totally bogus!
Unless Ted goes back in time to prevent his past self from killing Bill.
Yeah, but the doctrine would not have allowed this testimony, AIUI.
So did Miranda. So?
I don’t think that’s the standard, though – changing the law to allow additional evidence to be admitted is not the same as changing the law to remove elements of the crime or change the burden of proof the prosecution must reach.
I need to re-read Teague before I say anything beyond “think,” though.
What do you mean, “So?”?
He’s a cop. He’s using training that he learned, to some degree, on the job, to avoid being convicted of murders. Tax money paid for him to learn how to avoid prosecution for murder.
Not only does it erode faith in government when this happens, it also raises the danger of vigilantism.
If one of the parents of Drew’s dead wives killed him, would you convict, if you were on the jury? Many people wouldn’t. Would they be wrong if they didn’t, by your moral system? Why/why not?
Good point. 
Back on topic…
I live in the Chicago area. I’ve been following the Peterson cases (mostly through osmosis; if you watch the news or read the papers, it’s been damned hard to avoid) for five years now, since Stacy disappeared.
I have very little doubt that he’s a very bad man. I have very little doubt that he’s responsible for the murder of both wives #3 and #4. I hate the fact that a sworn law officer is able to take his knowledge to attempt to get away with murder – twice. I’d love to see the guy put away for the rest of his natural life.
And, yet, I didn’t want to see the system abused by the prosecution. It seems like they built their case on circumstantial evidence, the hearsay, and the fact that Peterson is so unlikeable, and has been such an annoying presence in the Chicago media for so long, that a jury would convict even without the smoking gun. I’m pretty convinced that if Peterson had just shut his trap the moment Stacy disappeared in 2005, had not done all of the radio and TV stunts, etc., that he would not have been convicted.
So, the Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction because of the greater good. Yes, Peterson TOTALLY DID IT. But should we pervert justice for it, therefore allowing the precedent?
Should Peterson game the system? That, to me, is the larger violation. We pay taxes. We do not expect that money to go toward “training murderers to get away with it”.
But from another POV, people expect LEO to be held to a higher standard of behavior…and when they violate that, people naturally (at least in most cases, I’d guess) are going to want the penalty to be more severe, as a deterrent to other LEO. I consider making a special law just to jail Peterson simply a way to avoid subverting the will of the taxpayers/electorate.
And finally, pure pragmatism would say that he has to be stopped, very publicly…otherwise, other cops could be emboldened to try the same thing…and people might just vigilante-kill him. It’s better to pervert justice than to encourage vigilante killing, or revenge killing.
If he killed my daughter, I might have trouble talking myself into not killing him. Being forgiving is great and all…but a vigilante would be doing a public service, in some ways, by ending him.
This post indicates that you don’t really know much about domestic violence. That’s a good thing.
It’s about control; the abuse is typically a mechanism, not the end it itself.
What perversion of justice? What greater good is there in not allowing the victim to have any say in a murder trial? It’s obvious to me that there should be an exception to the right to face one’s accusers for the victim of murder. I mean, all other victims get to testify.
I want someone to explain to me why the right to face one’s accusers is a cornerstone of justice. Particularly, I want to know why an exception for the dying words of a murder victim would be untenable. Why is preventing such a part of “the greater good”?