3 ms·

Then we all hope the trial will reveal that they're not guilty? I mean, the court system isn't perfect, but do you have a better idea? What would you do when

Then we all hope the trial will reveal that they're not guilty? I mean, the court system isn't perfect, but do you have a better idea? What would you do when we a court finds somebody guilty who maintains that they're innocent? If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) If you don't accept the trial's outcome because you can never be 100% sure, then how do you propose to run a criminal justice system?

jonhendry18 8y ago
"If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) " Except we know lots of innocent people have been convicted and later (often MUCH later) exonerated. The fallibility of the court system is a strong argument not to load up penalties because someone simply exercised their Constitutional right to a trial.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) No, it doesn't; it seems illogical, I would say, to impose additional punishment for people asserting their Constitutional right to compel the government to prove criminal allegations beyond a reasonable doubt without relying on testimony provided by the accused. It is contrary to the entire idea of a Constitutional right.
aqme28 8y ago
>If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) By 10x? No, I don't agree with that.
mikeash 8y ago
Can you explain how it follows logically? I don’t see anything resembling a logical argument for that. Seems more like it follows emotionally.
- ninkendo 8y ago
  It's certainly not an emotional argument, because I actually feel kind of repulsed by the idea, but I'll try my best to outline the logic: "They're more guilty for denying it" is equivalent to "they're less guilty for repenting", in the same sense that "I'm taller than you" is an equivalent statement to "you're shorter than me." It hinges on the idea that, if you were omniscient and knew the actual truth of what happened, you would probably feel more lenient towards a defendant who confessed their crime, versus one who denies it (again, imagine you're omniscient and you know the truth, that they really are guilty.) To tie the logic together, the key point is that court system thinks of itself as omniscient. There's no concept in the courts of "guilty but they maintain their innocence" as a separate state from "guilty". The courts aren't supposed to issue guilty verdicts if there's reasonable doubt. If you were found guilty, legally speaking you are guilty, so it follows that you must be lying if you say you're not. I'm not defending the practice... well, I defend the notion of guilty pleas getting shorter sentences because it makes for a better overall system by placing incentives on not tying up the courts any more than they need to. But I don't think of it as "let's be harsher on those that deny their crimes" so much as "let's be more lenient on those who admit them". It just happens that those statements are isomorphic.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    You’ve done a great job of explaining how all of this logically follows from being lenient to criminals who admit guilt, but that is the sticking point. What’s the logical argument for doing that?
    - ninkendo 8y ago
      Ah, sure, I'm making the assumption that one would agree that's a good thing. That's not what I was responding to originally (see fake-name's post, it's what I was replying to.) I was responding to the notion that the fallibility of the courts are the reason why we shouldn't be "less lenient" on those who maintain their innocence (because we can't be sure of their guilt.) You seem to be going farther than that: that we shouldn't be less lenient on those who maintain their innocence, even if we 100% know that they're guilty. That, of course, is a matter of opinion and there's no way to "prove" it per say, so you're right in that sense.

jonhendry18 8y ago

"If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) " Except we know lots of innocent people have been convicted and later (often MUCH later) exonerated. The fallibility of the court system is a strong argument not to load up penalties because someone simply exercised their Constitutional right to a trial.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) No, it doesn't; it seems illogical, I would say, to impose additional punishment for people asserting their Constitutional right to compel the government to prove criminal allegations beyond a reasonable doubt without relying on testimony provided by the accused. It is contrary to the entire idea of a Constitutional right.

aqme28 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago

Can you explain how it follows logically? I don’t see anything resembling a logical argument for that. Seems more like it follows emotionally.

ninkendo 8y ago
It's certainly not an emotional argument, because I actually feel kind of repulsed by the idea, but I'll try my best to outline the logic: "They're more guilty for denying it" is equivalent to "they're less guilty for repenting", in the same sense that "I'm taller than you" is an equivalent statement to "you're shorter than me." It hinges on the idea that, if you were omniscient and knew the actual truth of what happened, you would probably feel more lenient towards a defendant who confessed their crime, versus one who denies it (again, imagine you're omniscient and you know the truth, that they really are guilty.) To tie the logic together, the key point is that court system thinks of itself as omniscient. There's no concept in the courts of "guilty but they maintain their innocence" as a separate state from "guilty". The courts aren't supposed to issue guilty verdicts if there's reasonable doubt. If you were found guilty, legally speaking you are guilty, so it follows that you must be lying if you say you're not. I'm not defending the practice... well, I defend the notion of guilty pleas getting shorter sentences because it makes for a better overall system by placing incentives on not tying up the courts any more than they need to. But I don't think of it as "let's be harsher on those that deny their crimes" so much as "let's be more lenient on those who admit them". It just happens that those statements are isomorphic.
- mikeash 8y ago
  You’ve done a great job of explaining how all of this logically follows from being lenient to criminals who admit guilt, but that is the sticking point. What’s the logical argument for doing that?
  - ninkendo 8y ago
    Ah, sure, I'm making the assumption that one would agree that's a good thing. That's not what I was responding to originally (see fake-name's post, it's what I was replying to.) I was responding to the notion that the fallibility of the courts are the reason why we shouldn't be "less lenient" on those who maintain their innocence (because we can't be sure of their guilt.) You seem to be going farther than that: that we shouldn't be less lenient on those who maintain their innocence, even if we 100% know that they're guilty. That, of course, is a matter of opinion and there's no way to "prove" it per say, so you're right in that sense.