3 ms·

This is frequently cited by law enforcement and criminal justice officials, but this is an impossible bar to set, because they have not been convicted of those

This is frequently cited by law enforcement and criminal justice officials, but this is an impossible bar to set, because they have not been convicted of those other unspecified crimes. The excuse "he maybe didn't rob this store, but he did rob those other stores, so let's nudge the case a bit", even if done in good faith by law enforcement, is still fishy, because ... why not convict them instead for the other crimes being purported, since we're more confident about them? In many cases I think this is likely to be a post facto rationalization for the fact that the case against the suspect is weaker than initially thought but represents a great deal of manpower that feels wasted if the suspect is not convicted.

graphe 3y ago
That definitely happens but lots of evidence is thrown out and they are looking at throwing the law at him. A famous case is Al Capone. I’m not calling it right or wrong, it’s just what happens with the system in place. It’s also shown to the public to convict them. The jury has the ability to ‘throw’ the case as they did in the case of OJ.
- pc86 3y ago
  Except Al Capone actually did what he went to prison for. Yeah he did a lot of other stuff nobody could prove to the standard of a courtroom, but what you're talking about is someone "knows" Al Capone is bad, so they fabricate crimes and evidence and frame him for those in order to send him to prison. That would still be wrong. This is a feature, not a bug.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    A feature to the prosector maybe but a bug to the public at large. 1) People do convince themselves of falsehoods; the person may not actually have done that initial crime. 2) Being able to trump up lessor charges can be (ab)used even if the person didn't commit an initial crime but instead is just a ~journalist~ nuisance.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    Capone wasn't framed; have I misunderstood you?

graphe 3y ago

That definitely happens but lots of evidence is thrown out and they are looking at throwing the law at him. A famous case is Al Capone. I’m not calling it right or wrong, it’s just what happens with the system in place. It’s also shown to the public to convict them. The jury has the ability to ‘throw’ the case as they did in the case of OJ.

pc86 3y ago
Except Al Capone actually did what he went to prison for. Yeah he did a lot of other stuff nobody could prove to the standard of a courtroom, but what you're talking about is someone "knows" Al Capone is bad, so they fabricate crimes and evidence and frame him for those in order to send him to prison. That would still be wrong. This is a feature, not a bug.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  A feature to the prosector maybe but a bug to the public at large. 1) People do convince themselves of falsehoods; the person may not actually have done that initial crime. 2) Being able to trump up lessor charges can be (ab)used even if the person didn't commit an initial crime but instead is just a ~journalist~ nuisance.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Capone wasn't framed; have I misunderstood you?