4 ms·
I’m going to go ahead and disagree with this. The failure rate of the court isn’t whether or not convicts are guilty. It’s whether or not the constitutional rig
by SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I’m going to go ahead and disagree with this. The failure rate of the court isn’t whether or not convicts are guilty. It’s whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused have been violated. That rate is significantly high and totally unacceptable. You cannot just detain people without a trial indefinitely just because they’re “probably guilty”. You cannot force false testimony of children because “probably guilty”. You cannot being junk science like bite marks, lie detectors, “I smelled weed”, etc. because “probably guilty”. You cannot force a guilty plea by threatening someone’s life with an intentionally harsher sentence or death because “probably guilty”. This is royally fucked up and a multiple daily occurrence in the courts.
- vxNsr 4y agoI appreciate you taking a more conciliatory tone (at least in the beginning), many here are just trying to getting into flame wars. Still, I think you’d be very surprised if you actually spent any time in a court house, those examples you bring are very rare and far from a daily occurrence. Again, I believe even one innocent person behind bars is too many, but we need to weight that against creating a culture of lawlessness and violence (which is where it feels like many large American cities, mine included, are headed).
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoI have spent time at a court house. It’s called pleading guilty to a minor traffic violation. A cop lying or straight up making someone’s life hell for fighting is, in fact, something that happened the day I was there. Most everyone I know has either dealt with this or knows someone in their circle that dealt with this.