OCR Text |
Show Law profs debate criminal law changes that have occured in the last few years. These changes include in-clude the limited role of police in questioning suspects, unreasonable unreasona-ble search and seizure, expanded constitutional protection against bugging devices, protection of suspect sus-pect in line-up tactics and the right to a jury trial. Prof. Frankel challenged the criminal law itself that the criminal crimi-nal law does not work very well in rehabilitating the criminal. In fact it does just the opposite, he said. The school for prisoners only serves to harden the criminal and teach him how to do a more thorough job the next time. In fact criminal law does more harm than good, Prof. Frankel said. Criminal Law During the Warren Court, changes in criminal law have been numerous said Samuel Thurman, dean of the College of Law. Whether the changes in the Constitution Con-stitution affecting criminal law arc justified was discussed by Prof. Arvo Van Alstyne and Prof. Lionel Li-onel Frankel as a part of Challenge Chal-lenge Week. Dean Thurman said today in- " stead of just learning the basic four "R's" it is necessary to learn fournew ones regarding criminal law. The four "R's" concern changes in the constitution that affect religion, race, reapportionment re-apportionment and rights of the accused. Merits in Changes Prof. Van Alstyne discussed the merits of the changes in criminal law by reviewing the nine major Criminal law is symbolic, ritualistic ritual-istic and emotional instead of beneficial, constructive and serving serv-ing to reinfoce our own identity with people that for reasons unknown un-known do not behave in an accepted ac-cepted social pattern, he said. In conclusion, Dean Thurman said we need to familiarize ourselves our-selves with the changes in the constitution regarding criminal law so as to protect ourselves if we are confronted with situations that involve criminal law. |