3 ms·
>That's 110 people who either were innocent and terrorized by the police, or were guilty and escaped justice due to police incompetency. Either way, not a good
by DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
>That's 110 people who either were innocent and terrorized by the police, or were guilty and escaped justice due to police incompetency. Either way, not a good look.
To play devil's advocate: If you're going to reason that way, you should also consider the number of actual criminals who were punished only because of planted evidence.
I'm not advocating corruption - I still think it probably warrants the death penalty due to its cancerous and widespread impact on innocent people.
- bdhess 9y agoNo, because it's a decided question. As a society, we've already chosen that we'd rather see a perpetrator walk free than imprisoned without proper evidence. We shouldn't have to revisit that decision on the merits just because some police officer who disagrees with it unilaterally breached the social contract. We should just punish him. Severely.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago> No, because it's a decided question. It sounds like you're suggesting that ethical reasoning done by previous generations is somehow binding on future debates, almost like some form of case law. > As a society, we've already chosen that we'd rather see a perpetrator walk free than imprisoned without proper evidence. I wonder if you're failing to make a distinction between what people will say in public vs. their private thoughts on the matter.