4 ms·
Ok, that's fair, I was being a bit over dramatic. However, I still think that the kind of 'eye for an eye' approach proposed by the comment I was relying to wo
by irb 9y ago
Ok, that's fair, I was being a bit over dramatic.
However, I still think that the kind of 'eye for an eye' approach proposed by the comment I was relying to would have a non-trivial, negative impact on the reporting of crimes. Just as guilty people can be acquitted, innocent people can be found guilty (even if it's not automatic), and this means that the accuser is exposing themselves to risk.
Fundamentally, no one should ever have to worry about the consequences of reporting a crime.
- Banthum 9y ago>no one should ever have to worry about the consequences of reporting a crime The rub is, they should have to worry about the consequences, if they're making a bad-faith false report. They should have to worry a lot, because they themselves are committing a wrong by reporting a false crime in such a way. It's an incredibly hard problem, though.
- nopatternhere 9y ago> because they themselves are committing a wrong I think you mean crime, not wrong.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y agoTrying to deprive someone of their liberty is a crime. If the report is proven false then the only crime is the false report.