3 ms·
I agree with every fact you make here, but I don't see how that disproves my statement. I didn't mention anything about sentencing - I used the term 'leniency'
by jondubois 10y ago
I agree with every fact you make here, but I don't see how that disproves my statement. I didn't mention anything about sentencing - I used the term 'leniency' in a general way; as the tendency to view defendants as innocent.
Also, I'm not saying that the criminal courts are doing it right - I'm saying that maybe we have two extremes and the ideal justice system operates somewhere in the middle.
I can't stand that self-righteous legal crap about 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' - In my books, if you can't prove something mathematically, it's not proof - In effect, you can never really prove anything in a legal context - In reality, everything is always judged "on the balance of probability".
- angry_octet 10y agoWell, despite your view that considering those accused as innocent is lenient, the burden of proof falling on the accuser is in fact a core tenet of common law justice (and supported by the 5th, 6th and 8th amendments to the Constitution). And if someone accused you of wrongdoing you would see the value in that. Humouring your dislike of such judicial proofs, it is reasonable to view the system of justice as a series of ever more precise and expensive diagnostic tests. At all stages there is a desire to finalise the proceeding to reduce the bill for enforcing the law, with the dual goals of (A) not letting too many innocents be shafted or (B) too many guilty walk. Many would argue that the current system is broken. I doubt the fix is just fair trials, because most of the defendants are indeed guilty. It is related to lack of opportunity, a predilection for jailing people for minor offences rather than rehabilitating them, and systemic racism.