3 ms·
The inverse of your implication that smaller crimes should be less prosecuted is that merely being accused of a more serious crime means you have fewer rights.
by Godel_unicode 11y ago
The inverse of your implication that smaller crimes should be less prosecuted is that merely being accused of a more serious crime means you have fewer rights.
Keep in mind that we have the precedent of innocent unless proven guilty in the US, so the suspected drug kingpin, terrorist, or serial killer is just as innocent as the suspected bubble-gum thief.
- x5n1 11y agoI don't know I can't find it in my conscience to justify scumbags that are well known to be scumbags but use criminal syndicates to hide their crimes. For instance the mafia uses smaller gangsters to commit crimes and then hide behind those. I can't get myself to condone that, there is nothing to stop people like that then through totalitarian systems.
- Godel_unicode 11y agoThe situation you describe is the precise reason that the United States has the RICO act[1]. Prove that someone is involved in a scumbag organization (insert legalese for "scumbag" here)and they're guilty just like the person who committed the crime. Our system, while admittedly imperfect, prioritizes protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty (obviously it's more complicated than that, but that's the core) 1-http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html