3 ms·

The cases would be prosecuted if there was evidence to support them. You can’t just punish people without proof. Contrary to popular belief the purpose of the l

The cases would be prosecuted if there was evidence to support them. You can’t just punish people without proof. Contrary to popular belief the purpose of the legal system is not to make wronged people feel better.

nawgz 5y ago
So you think a crime as endemic as rape which is punished at vanishingly low rates indicates innocence of the perps instead of a fundamentally flawed justice system, starting at the point of evidence collection? Even after seeing those very evidence collectors, the police, flaunt their duties and the law repeatedly? Interesting.
- suifbwish 5y ago
  The idea of someone being able to accuse someone else of a crime without evidence should terrify anyone who believes in freedom and democracy. Rape, murder, or any other crime.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    What does that have to do with this article? Are you saying that the OP has requested this person be criminally convicted?
    - suifbwish 5y ago
      Not from what I have read. It seems like they chose the internet mob as their bringer of justice.
  - nawgz 5y ago
    Where on earth has that come into play? That is a strange and telling deflection.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  I am curious. What percentage of all rape convictions would you tolerate being wrong (that is, the person behind bars is innocent) in order to ensure sufficient coverage of convicting the guilty?
  - suifbwish 5y ago
    What makes you think there is or should be a maximum acceptable tolerance for that sort of thing? The purpose of our legal process is FIRST to protect the innocent THEN to punish the guilty. The US legal system is not a hot dog factory where there is an acceptable concentration of rat feces levels in the food. If there is not evidence of a crime, no crime shall be punished. There are other countries where that sort of thing is tolerated.
    - rodgerd 5y ago
      The standard is "reasonable doubt", not "absolute certainty".
  - nawgz 5y ago
    This is a false dichotomy to propose. My claim is that the police - notorious domestic abusers, rights violators - are failing to collect evidence from women coming forward with rape allegations. Given the time-sensitive and trauma-riddled nature of such things, it is not a simple topic, so even without attributing malice, it is clear police are undertrained (here and elsewhere). I wrote a bunch more and gathered some links, but Hacker News is telling me to slow down. 6 comments on this thread since 2pm, wow such spam

nawgz 5y ago

So you think a crime as endemic as rape which is punished at vanishingly low rates indicates innocence of the perps instead of a fundamentally flawed justice system, starting at the point of evidence collection? Even after seeing those very evidence collectors, the police, flaunt their duties and the law repeatedly? Interesting.

suifbwish 5y ago
The idea of someone being able to accuse someone else of a crime without evidence should terrify anyone who believes in freedom and democracy. Rape, murder, or any other crime.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  What does that have to do with this article? Are you saying that the OP has requested this person be criminally convicted?
  - suifbwish 5y ago
    Not from what I have read. It seems like they chose the internet mob as their bringer of justice.
- nawgz 5y ago
  Where on earth has that come into play? That is a strange and telling deflection.
stickfigure 5y ago
I am curious. What percentage of all rape convictions would you tolerate being wrong (that is, the person behind bars is innocent) in order to ensure sufficient coverage of convicting the guilty?
- suifbwish 5y ago
  What makes you think there is or should be a maximum acceptable tolerance for that sort of thing? The purpose of our legal process is FIRST to protect the innocent THEN to punish the guilty. The US legal system is not a hot dog factory where there is an acceptable concentration of rat feces levels in the food. If there is not evidence of a crime, no crime shall be punished. There are other countries where that sort of thing is tolerated.
  - rodgerd 5y ago
    The standard is "reasonable doubt", not "absolute certainty".
- nawgz 5y ago
  This is a false dichotomy to propose. My claim is that the police - notorious domestic abusers, rights violators - are failing to collect evidence from women coming forward with rape allegations. Given the time-sensitive and trauma-riddled nature of such things, it is not a simple topic, so even without attributing malice, it is clear police are undertrained (here and elsewhere). I wrote a bunch more and gathered some links, but Hacker News is telling me to slow down. 6 comments on this thread since 2pm, wow such spam