42. See ibid., p. 542. The court considered a situation where the police could have obtained an arrest warrant based on the evidence they had prior to an illegal search, but decided to search without a warrant to confirm that obtaining the warrant would be worth it. If due process provisions require the government to respect the law when depriving individuals of liberty, does it not follow that illegally seized evidence cannot be used to secure convictions and imprisonment? The drafters themselves did not draw this conclusion. The question of exclusion almost never arose until the second half of the nineteenth century, but in two and apparently only two cases reported before the Civil War, the courts declared that they would not stop to examine the methods by which the evidence was obtained.20 Revisionist historians challenge the dominant or traditional view of historical events and raise views, who disagree with traditionalists. which need to be freshly evaluated. Revisionist history is often practiced by those in the minority, such as feminist historians, historians of ethnic minorities, those who work outside of traditional research at smaller, lesser-known universities, or younger researchers, mostly historians, who have the most to gain and the least to lose by challenging the status quo. In the friction between the mainstream of accepted beliefs and the new perspectives of historical revisionism, received historical ideas are either modified, solidified, or clarified. If, over time, revisionist ideas become the status quo of the new establishment, a paradigm shift would have taken place. Historian Forrest McDonald often criticizes the turn that revisionism took, but acknowledges that the turmoil of the 1960s in America changed the way history was written: several states, unlike the common law, had allowed prosecutions by information rather than prosecution. Some courts have found this derogation to be consistent with due process because “prosecutions by means of information do not deprive [the accused] of the immunity or protection to which he or she is entitled under the law”. 14 For those courts, the right to due process meant `the law in its proper application in accordance with prescribed forms and the general rules for the protection of the rights of individuals`.
15 They stated that `administrative and appeal procedures must evolve from time to time in the light of developments in case-law and society`. 16 The position of these courts appeared to be a good one where a state had reasonably altered the common law, but threatened to turn any alleged violation of state law into a federal constitutional matter. The above argument for the exclusion of due process differs from that advanced by Richard Re. It is based on an assessment of the ability of older remedies to do the job in changed circumstances, not on a perceived change in legal categories. The result would be a less cramped and distorted exclusion rule than that proposed by Re. Focusing on due process clauses could serve as a reminder of the importance drafters attach to government compliance with the law, and if this revised direction led the Supreme Court to take a less hostile view of the exclusionary rule, I would be happy to do so. However, once a judge has tried the detainee, his detention will no longer be considered illegal. The courts would consider it to be based on the judge`s decision and not on the unlawful arrest of the official. Similarly, his conviction and sentence of imprisonment after a jury convicted the arrested person would be considered based on the jury`s verdict.
Unlawful arrest could remain grounds for the detainee`s detention, but the courts would not consider it to be an immediate reason (i.e. a cause they want to treat as a cause). As social, political, and cultural influences change a society, most historians revise and update their explanation of historical events. The old consensus, based on limited evidence, could no longer be considered historically valid to explain the details: cause and effect, motivation and self-interest – who says how? And why? the past happened as it did; Therefore, the historical revisionism of the factual record is revised in order to accord with the contemporary understanding of history. In 1986, historian John Hope Franklin described four stages in the historiography of African life experience in the United States, based on different models of historical consensus. [11] The prohibition of inappropriate seizures, including arrests, is a code of conduct that ensures self-control. An unlawful arrest – with the exception of search principles such as the doctrine of search for arrest – does not limit the scope of information available for use as evidence at trial.78 This is the reasoned conclusion of this study. that the sense of guilt that the Vietnam War created in the minds of many Americans is unwarranted, and that allegations of officially tolerated and grossly immoral illegal behavior are devoid of substance. Indeed, a detailed examination of battlefield practices shows that civilian casualties in Vietnam were less severe than during World War II [1939-45] and Korea [1950-53], and that concern to minimize the devastation of war was strong. Measuring and comparing the devastation and loss of life caused by various wars will be reprehensible to those who reject any use of military force as an instrument of foreign policy and may be interpreted as insensitivity. But as long as wars take place, it remains a moral duty to try to reduce the torment caused by war, and the fulfillment of this obligation must not be despised.
Günter Lewy`s America in Vietnam (1978) is an example of historical revisionism very different from the popular view of the United States in the Vietnam War (1955-75), for which the author was criticized and supported because he belonged to the revisionist school on the history of the Vietnam War. [42] [43] Lewy`s reinterpretation was the first in a series of works by historians of the revisionist school on the geopolitical role and US military behavior in Vietnam. The role of the American economy and the so-called “robber barons” was revised in the 1930s. Described by Gabriel Kolko, historians such as Allan Nevins and Alfred D. as “economic revisionism”. Chandler pointed to the positive contributions of individuals previously portrayed as villains. [32] Peter Novick writes: “The argument that, despite the moral offenses of the robber barons, they were more than offset by their decisive contributions to American military [and industrial] prowess, has often been advanced by Allan Nevins.” [33]. but others, notably in the United States. Representing what American historians call revisionism is the willingness to question official explanations. No one should be surprised by this phenomenon.
Every war in American history has been followed in due course by skeptical reassessments of supposedly sacred assumptions. For [historical] revisionism is an essential part of the process by which history, by raising new problems and exploring new possibilities, broadens its perspectives and enriches its ideas. [7] Historical revisionism is the means by which the historical narrative, the history of a society, as it is understood in its collective memory, constantly incorporates new facts and interpretations of events, commonly understood as history.