Your editorial takes the court to task for allowing improperly obtained confessions to be used to impeach a person's credibility if he takes the stand at his own trial. Now this does not refer to a rubber hose-type confession; this refers to a confession that was volunteered after the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights to remain silent. You wring your editorial hands and complain that this present court isn't up to the "loftier standards" of the Bird court.
"Loftier standards" my foot! You should get down on your knees and give thanks to the present court for finally giving the victim an even chance with the criminal in our courts of law. When was the last time that you heard of a victim being given any "rights" by a hoodlum? What is the harm in allowing all "relevant evidence" to be used in court trials?
I fail to see how this decision is going to wrong anyone who is truly innocent. If a person confesses, he must have something to confess! I can't imagine he is just going to make it up to please a police officer. The liberalization of the Miranda rules cannot injure anyone who is truly innocent. The only result will be that it will be a little more difficult for criminal lawyers to get acquittals for their guilty clients.
WILBUR K. PECK