4 ms·
> That may very well be true, but you don't get to just make up outcomes because one group is more powerful than another. The prosecution just failed to prove b
by naasking 4y ago
> That may very well be true, but you don't get to just make up outcomes because one group is more powerful than another. The prosecution just failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of defrauding patients.
Arguably, court procedures and standards of evidence are also made up and prioritize certain powerful groups over others.
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't have rules, I'm just not sure appealing to the rules invalidates a claim that the outcome was unjust.
- origin_path 4y agoWhich powerful groups do court rules and standard of evidence prioritize?
- naasking 4y agoThose with finances and influence. Or do you think that public defenders and private attorneys yield comparable outcomes? As but one example.
- origin_path 4y agoThe whole point of standards of evidence and court rules is to diminish the importance of influence. Those rules and standards also don't "prioritize" people with finances: there is nothing in any rule or standard that says "give priority to people with more money". The exacting nature of the system does mean expertise is worth money, but that's not an explicit design goal of that system.