4 ms·
The fact that the egregious examples exist is proof enough of the insanity and incompetence that's permitted by the justice system. The appeals processes seems
by TillE 11y ago
The fact that the egregious examples exist is proof enough of the insanity and incompetence that's permitted by the justice system. The appeals processes seems too restrictive to allow for proper review in many cases. Just because a system has existed for a long time doesn't mean it's ideal in any way.
The murder of Meredith Kercher is another prominent example in another country. All evidence pointed to one murderer, who was duly convicted. And then the state decided to spend years prosecuting two innocent people based on some odd behavior and not the slightest shred of credible physical evidence. They're just lucky they finally got a sane judge at the highest level.
- cbsmith 11y ago> The fact that the egregious examples exist is proof enough of the insanity and incompetence that's permitted by the justice system. It's more like proof of the law of large numbers. > The appeals processes seems too restrictive to allow for proper review in many cases. Appeals processes should be restrictive, otherwise the time and expense of the trial itself are essentially squandered. That said, I have no doubt that at least in some, and possibly many systems, it's over the line. > Just because a system has existed for a long time doesn't mean it's ideal in any way. I hope you didn't think I suggested anything to the contrary.