On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:04:28 +0100, Nick
wrote:
>Mike_B wrote:
>> In message , Dave Baker
>> writes
>>>
>>> "Nick" wrote in message
>>> news:65cc6rF2fbhjjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Dave Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I've said on numerous occasions if the crime is trivial you can't
>>>>> get
>>>>> the police to even investigate without independent evidence or at least
>>>>> one other person supporting your story. If the crime is serious you can
>>>>> be arrested and convicted on basically zero evidence or the word of one
>>>>> person. It runs completely counter to both common sense and natural
>>>>> justice and although no doubt many people who are accused based on just
>>>>> one person's word are guilty there's no way any sensible system should
>>>>> convict them. It's just tough that many guilty people therefore go free
>>>>> but far better than that innocent ones should ever be convicted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These things aren't absolute. A workable justice system requires that a
>>>> number of innocent people are convicted in order that it can convict
>>>> enough guilty people to act as a deterrent.
>>>
>>> I don't think a workable justice system requires any such thing and any
>>> system that "requires" innocent people to be convicted is not even a
>>> justice
>>> system by definition.
>>>
>>
>> Well said.
>>
>> A justice system that requires innocent people to be convicted... never
>> heard such rubbish in my life.
>>
>>
>
>No they don't say it but it is obviously true. We don't know enough to
>make perfect decisions about guilt or innocence hence we have to guess.
If we don't know or there is reasonable doubt, an acquittal is in
order.
>If we are too conservative in our guesses in order to protect the
>innocent too many guilty will go free.
Who cares how many guilty go free? What you need to care about is the
one, single innocent person who is wrongly convicted. I don't care if
a million guilty go free.
MM |