3 ms·
We have to assume the conviction is correct. Otherwise that leads to basically letting everyone go free just in case they're actually innocent. So once we're su
by Asbostos 11y ago
We have to assume the conviction is correct. Otherwise that leads to basically letting everyone go free just in case they're actually innocent. So once we're sure somebody did a crime, I would say we don't give the criminal the benefit of the doubt that they're probably safe. Rather we somehow find out that they're safe enough before releasing them. Erring on the side of "not safe".
- anigbrowl 11y agoWe have an appeals process precisely because such assumptions are unreliable. The GP is essentially proposing we hand everyone a life sentence by default, which is hardly an improvement on the status quo.
- msandford 11y ago> We have to assume the conviction is correct. That's a pretty big assumption given that prosecutors face no professional or personal consequences for wrongful convictions, even if they are particularly egregious.
- fsloth 11y ago"We have to assume the conviction is correct." That takes quite a faith in process that has little remedial feedback. Unlike say engineering or medicine where there can be a said to be an objectively observable system where all strive towards similar outcomes - and even those disciplines screw up constantly. "Otherwise that leads to basically letting everyone go free just in case they're actually innocent" There is a huge category of crime where long term incarceration absolutely does no help to anyone whatsoever.