<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>RJK wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>RZS, in a back-handed slap at the exclusionary rule, says: "But the
exclusionary rule is something<BR>that was invented by USA judges in the early
20th century, and would seem to have no more place in halacha than it does in
any other legal system."<BR><BR>Why is the exclusion of probative evidence
because it was obtained illegally any worse than excluding probative evidence
because it is being proffered by a woman?<BR><BR>Joseph Kaplan<BR><BR><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>----------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CM comments:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I suspect that women can not testify because of a
gezairas hakasuv (see Shovuos 30a) and not as the result of some rational sevara
(If the meforshim ascribe a rationale, perhaps someone could point it out).
However there is valid logic for the invention of the <FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>exclusionary rule by the </FONT>US courts. The
reason is simply to protect the overall court system and rules of evidence that
are at the root of any court system. They chose to exclude probative
evidence obtained illegally at the cost of possibly distorting the outcome in a
particular case in order to protect the integrity of the system as a whole. The
logic is debatable (and certainly is) but not totally irrational.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kol Tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>