4 ms·

>>>They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question. They are technically innocent. That is the central assumptio

by patmcc 4y ago

>>>They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question. They are technically innocent. That is the central assumption in any good justice system. >>>But your last sentence comes back around to the problem of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP could very well be a year and a half. I don't think anyone would consider that reasonable if they were in custody. Let's say you were charged with something (that you didn't do, let's say) - what would you consider a fair amount of time before a trial?

bena 4y ago
You do understand I'm describing the problem, not advocating for the system, right? And presumption of innocence is a matter during the trial. Police can and have diverted, detained, and otherwise interfered with people who have committed no crime. All I will say is that it's a complex situation and that while keeping people in jail for over a year before we even get to the trial to determine their status is not what we should be doing, the complete opposite of not detaining anyone seems equally bad in a completely different way.
- patmcc 4y ago
  I do understand that, but it's a very pernicious problem, and the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" is just some legal idea we eye-roll at and don't actually believe is at the root of it. It should not be just a matter for the trial! It should be treated as actually true from the first time an officer interacts with a suspect. >>Police can and have diverted, detained, and otherwise interfered with people who have committed no crime Yep, and we need to push back against that in a much stronger way, police have far too broad powers to detain with no consequences.
  - bena 4y ago
    The diversion/detention can be as innocuous as blocking off a road for a parade or preventing people from walking into an area with an active shooter. In both cases, I'd be prevented from executing perfectly legal actions even though I've personally committed on crime. Because ultimately, the difference between that and being jailed awaiting a trial is a matter of degree. And most of our ideals are far loftier than the reality of how we implement them. And I think they should be. We should aspire to be better and to look for ways to be better. But we must also contend with reality. And when ideals and reality are in conflict, reality is going to win. Until we find out how to better adapt to reality or to adapt our ideals to reality.

by patmcc 4y ago

bena 4y ago

You do understand I'm describing the problem, not advocating for the system, right? And presumption of innocence is a matter during the trial. Police can and have diverted, detained, and otherwise interfered with people who have committed no crime. All I will say is that it's a complex situation and that while keeping people in jail for over a year before we even get to the trial to determine their status is not what we should be doing, the complete opposite of not detaining anyone seems equally bad in a completely different way.

patmcc 4y ago
I do understand that, but it's a very pernicious problem, and the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" is just some legal idea we eye-roll at and don't actually believe is at the root of it. It should not be just a matter for the trial! It should be treated as actually true from the first time an officer interacts with a suspect. >>Police can and have diverted, detained, and otherwise interfered with people who have committed no crime Yep, and we need to push back against that in a much stronger way, police have far too broad powers to detain with no consequences.
- bena 4y ago
  The diversion/detention can be as innocuous as blocking off a road for a parade or preventing people from walking into an area with an active shooter. In both cases, I'd be prevented from executing perfectly legal actions even though I've personally committed on crime. Because ultimately, the difference between that and being jailed awaiting a trial is a matter of degree. And most of our ideals are far loftier than the reality of how we implement them. And I think they should be. We should aspire to be better and to look for ways to be better. But we must also contend with reality. And when ideals and reality are in conflict, reality is going to win. Until we find out how to better adapt to reality or to adapt our ideals to reality.