4 ms·
so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this 1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty 2. The syst
by phpisthebest 3y ago
so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this
1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty
2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self
Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality
- kevinmchugh 3y ago3. Federal prosecutors are resource-constrained and don't like to lose, so they only prosecute the surest cases. Imagine you offer a great soccer player a million dollars if he can shoot 50 goals in a row, and he gets to choose the defenders and goalies. He's probably going to choose children to go against him.
- phpisthebest 3y agoWell in this context it would be the poor, and people that lack education. People that lack the resources to fight back. still not something we should be proud of
- kevinmchugh 3y agoOr, look at the Sam Bankman-Fried prosecution. The DoJ could've gone after a lot more people, but chose to use them as assets to get SBF, the kingpin. The beneficiaries here are the mid-tier criminals.
- robocat 3y agoThe Japanese use #1. 99.9% of criminal cases that go to trial in Japan end in a guilty verdict. So maybe some humans are perfect enough?
- phpisthebest 3y agoUnlikely, it more a deference to authority. you can not honestly believe that 99.9% all cases in Japan are decided justly and fairly and there are statically zero false conviction in the system.