More applause, this time for ** Sua. ** You have hit upon the thing that has been nagging at my brain throughout this thread: the disturbingly socialist tone of those who dismiss the ideal of the guilty going free. Very un-American.
What a shame.
why stop there? Certainly if you place the absolute premium on “better to have innocents locked up than the guilty go free”, we should err on the side of insuring that guilty people aren’t free to go on and commit more crime. It’s simple to do, really:
-
Anyone accused of a crime might at least be guilty. Lock’ em up immediately. No need for a trial, god knows, waste of time, since we don’t really care if they’re innocent.
-
It would then of course go w/o saying that rules of evidence wouldn’t be needed, since safeguarding the rights of the accused would be a moot point. Illegally obtained evidence, evidence of prior arrests (even w/o convictions) would of course be let in (to the non trial).
-
Prior guilt of any crime would of course be prima facie evidence of the person’s likelihood of committing more crime, keep 'em locked up.
yea, that’d work.
Aaaaaagh. That post was messed up completely. Sorry. MY responses were:
not really tag
Speaking as a “lily livered liberal” I would andI bet all the other “LLL’s” here would too.
That’s your choice.
Prove it. You can’t of course, and I can’t prove the opposite. But I believe it.
No, I admit I’m not, and I wouldn’t know where to start. But I’m pleased whenever it happens.
In your mind which strikes me as very sad, and unfortunately, very CONSERVATIVE. Not just “conservative” but ultra-conservative. "If they’re in jail they must be guilty. Sorry, no. Can’t accept it, won’t accept it.
You may be right here, but without a cite, I can’t accept that at face value.
Too bad.
Well tag, that’s your opinion. Here’s my opinion. Speaking only for myself: You are a stupid, opinionated, ethically retarded moron who listens to way too much Limbaugh and O’Reilly.
But, hey, you’re still free and that’s the way it should be. Get back to us when you have been convicted of a crime you didn’t commit. In the meantime I’ll be very happy to let people off if there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt, and if that means I get hurt someday, that’s a risk I accept because life is full of risks and so is freedom. I wouldn’t have THAT any other way.
Sorry it got so messed up. My fault entirely. I guess I should be put in jail now.
So you pity police officers, firefighters, and soldiers? Because these are all people who accept that society is more important than they are as individuals. They risk death every day on their jobs to protect society.
of course, those folks actually volunteered for those positions, vs. the poor slob who gets wrongfully imprisoned…
Alrighty then, Stoid. How about you volunteer to have your house robbed by someone who was released on a technicality? Or perhaps you’d rather have a family member murdered or raped. Doesn’t sound like such a bad idea to break a few eggs while making that omelette now, does it? Sigh…
There are two sides to this issue. However, both want the same thing…to protect innocent people. Personally, I would rather protect all the people that are not involved in the criminal justice system at all. All the people who are out there just trying to make a living and take care of their family who could possibly be hurt by someone being let out of jail when they shouldn’t be.
Besides, does anyone on this board honestly believe that there aren’t PLENTY of chances to get things right? I mean, c’mon. Appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. The good guys get to take advantage of our generous legal system just as much as the bad guys do. You have to have a little faith that the system will work. I know that’s hard sometimes, but if you don’t like the way things work in this country, you are free to go anywhere else you like.
[hijack]What is with all the newbies raging against drugs lately?[/h]
hey, Lord ??? “you don’t like how it’s done, you’re free to go elsewhere?” _ well, you do know that ‘how it’s done here’ is that yes, we free people on legal technicalities, and accept that some guilty people will go free to avoid that the innocent may be punished? Let us know you’re new address, won’t you? ta!
sigh. “your new address”
dammit.
:smash:
The empirical evidence contradicts your thesis. The guilty - indeed the majority of the guilty - have been going unpunished since this nation was founded. The perpetrators of most crimes are never caught. Indeed, I would submit that the great majority of crimes have gone unpunished in the all the history of western civilization (or any civilization, for that matter). Doesn’t seem to have ripped the fabric of law and order in society.
Sua
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am not perfectly happy with the way the country is run, but as best as I can tell, it’s still the best legal system in the world. I personally wouldn’t have it any other way.
What I want from this society is as many guilty people punished as possible. Does this mean that a few innocent people will be punished? Possibly. Does this change what I want from my government? Of course not.
If you want to make an ommlette, you hafta break a few eggs. Life lesson for all you LLLs out there. This isn’t me trying to be a prick, this is just the way life is. Sorry if you don’t like the way I think, but I’m positive I’m not alone in this sentiment.
The legal system already says that you are innocent until proven guilty. What changes would you make to the legal structure to make sure less innocent people get convicted? I’d like to hear some of your ideas. Or do those who disagree with me simply like the ideal of less innocent people in jail?
I don’t think you understand, Lord Ashtar.
- I don’t think that anyone here has argued that we should not punish the guilty for fear of wrongly punishing the innocent. The point is very simple - the criminal justice system is imperfect, and incorrect verdicts will be handed down. Accepting error as a reality, you set up the system so that it is more likely you err by letting guilty go free then by punishing the innocent.
- “It’s better to let ten guilty men go free …” is the underpinning of the American criminal jurisprudence system. Indeed, it is the point of the 5th & 6th Amendments, and (partially) the point of the 4th Amendment, as well.
Indeed, the principle predates the Constitution. The concept is expressed in William Blackstone’s Commentaries, 4 Blackstone 358 (1770). Blackstone was one of the (if not the) key legal common law theorists, and his legal theories were exceedingly influential on the Founding Fathers.
http://earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html
And, of course, Blackstone didn’t come up with the idea himself - it has a long history in common law jurisprudence.
So, unless you define the Founding Fathers as “lily-livered liberals,” the concept is not some radical change, but the law of the land since the founding of the country. I can also provide to you scads of case law stretching throughout American history that espouse the principle.
Those of who support the concept don’t want changes in the legal structure. We want the status quo. The law and American principles of jurisprudence already agree with us.
Those of you who want to espouse a different principle are the ones who bear the burden of demonstrating why the American criminal jurisprudence system should change, and how it should change.
I mean, c’mon people. I don’t define “lilly livered liberals” as people who think the Founding Fathers were right, and who don’t want the system to change.
Are you arguing out of ignorance, not knowing the the principle has been in force for over 200 years? Or do you know that, and are arguing that the FFs were wrong and that those 200 years of precedent should be overturned?
Sua
The saying isn’t about letting 10 guilty men (who we know are guilty) go free rather than punish one innocent (who we know to be innocent. It’s about how certain we want to be of someones guilt before we punish them. If we had perfect knowledge, this wouldn’t be an issue at all. We could punish all of the guilty and only the guilty. But we don’t. We don’t know which witnesses are lying or mistaken. We have to depend on a judge or a jury to determine who’s telling the truth and whether someones guilty, and we have to have a system that sets some standard of proof and has some basic assumptions. The current system sets some of the guilty free (more than I’d like, but nowhere near ten percent unless you don’t count plea bargains and only look at trials),and imprisons some innocents (also more than I’d like) , but any system, assuming we don’t have God-like knowledge is going to do at least one of them.
I can easily think of a system in which nearly all of the guilty are punished. It starts out with a high standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt, just like the current one. But there’s a presumption of guilt, rather than innocence- so the accused has to prove his/her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. No technicalities- so while the police may not be allowed to search your house without a warrant, if they do whatever they find can be used against you. And by the way,Lord Ashtar, if we’re most concerned with punishing the guilty, there won’t **be **appeal after appeal. Guilty people get out on appeals, too.
I think I’d rather take my chances with the criminals than live under a system like that.
Photopat:
I’m just not a hypocrit about it all. We regularly lock up innocent people, and by we, I mean society at large. And we lose no sleep over it. At least I don’t. When most of us serve on a jury, we correctly assume, contrary to the official instructions, that the prosecutor wouldn’t have brought the charges unless he or she believed them. Yes, if we were convinced that the person was innocent, we’d let them off, but few of us would let them off if there was a good chance of guilt, and more particularly if the person appeared to be of the criminal element. It rates a collective so what, we all go about our business. What does the public want? Law and order judges. We vote for them and the politicians that appoint them. We aren’t interested in a judge that will enforce the rights of the accused except to excoriate them, and properly so.
As for me being convicted, there is a silly assumption that I would be charged in the first place. It won’t happen to me because I do not hang around the criminal element and I don’t look like a criminal.
This isn’t really an “ultra conservative” concept, it is, in one form or another, what most people in this thread have been saying: you will inevitably convict some innocent people along with the guilty. Of the half of Americans who vote, even the liberals vote in such a way to arrive at this result. As for the half that don’t vote, who cares what they think?
As for me, sure, I’m perfectly capable of defending my home and family in a life or death situation. Defending myself in court, where my life is decided by the opinions of twelve strangers, that actually frightens me. Thankfully the system is set up to make wrongful conviction more difficult than not.
As I said, I’ll protect myself, thank you.
I’d make sure there were a lot less idiots with this mentality on the jury…
There is your reason why innocents get convicted. “Well dang, the DA charged him, and he looks like a criminal to me, hell fire hang him high!”:rolleyes:
Does the innocent guy behind bars or frying in the electric chair go about his business?
Taggert:
I’ve never served on a jury yet, so I can’t speak to the official instructions. I agree that it probably would seem likely that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring charges unless he/she thought they should be filed, but that doesn’t mean the prosecutor is correct.
What exactly does a criminal look like? You mention that a couple of times, as well as the “criminal element.” Who are they, in your mind? Please elaborate.
You being convicted has nothing to do with whom you hang around, or what you look like (at least it never should). It has to do with whether or not you are charged with a crime, and then the judge/jury decides the evidence warrants a conviction. People have been convicted many times who had nice friends and families.
As to judges being concerned with the rights of the accused. I absolutely want that. Our system is supposed to guarantee it. Why? because they are ACCUSED. Not convicted. They may be innocent. Remember, our system is based on “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Your posts suggest that you equate accusation with guilt. “He was accused, and they wouldn’t have accused him if he didn’t do it”, so why should the accused have the same rights as, say, the victim, seems to be your philosophy. It’s not mine. The only way an ACCUSED person can be guaranteed a fair, honest, just trial is if his/her rights are protected. Otherwise we get into secret evidence and being accused without being told what the accusation is.
As to the half of Americans who don’t vote, well, they’ve opted out of the decision making process. It’s a shame because it means all decisions are skewed. Of course, they still have rights, right?
Ahem, Lord? People aren’t omelettes. Got that? Cool.