7 ms·

Blackstone: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" So not sure where you got the impression he's okay with up to 100 peopl

Blackstone: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" So not sure where you got the impression he's okay with up to 100 people being disturbed so we can catch one bad guy. But then, he wasn't really talking about that was he? Better the guilty go free than the innocent suffer what? He was, essentially, talking about the principle of innocent until proven guilty; that innocent people shouldn't suffer by being punished for a crime unjustly. 2999 innocent people, in your formulation, though, are not being punished for a crime. They're not even being accused of a crime.

godelski 3y ago
Well I forgot to link but from the wiki Other commentators have echoed the principle. Benjamin Franklin stated it as: "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" I went with Franklin because we are specifically talking America but let's be honest, the number doesn't matter and it seems you agree. Let's focus on that. Because I'm 100% with you, this isn't even people who have been accused. Which even those accused have rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
- jameshart 3y ago
  You've still got the ratio backwards. Franklin says if you know 101 people watched a video, and 100 of them are guilty of a crime, you can't just round up all 101 and throw them in jail. I.e., if you have a standard of punishment that would convict even one innocent person for every 100 guilty people it catches, it's not a good standard. Which I think we can all agree with. But that's not what's happening here, is it?
  - chii 3y ago
    so it is considered punishment to have the watch information revealed to the state?
  - godelski 3y ago
    > you can't just round up all 101 and throw them in jail Yes. "100 people" (or whatever) had their rights violated. Sure, not as bad as jail, but it is still in the spirit. I'm not sure why you think I have it backwards, I think we're just using different perspectives. But I'm not into being pedantic if we understand one another.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> innocent people, in your formulation, though, are not being punished for a crime. They're not even being accused of a crime. They are, however, being harmed. It's easier to use historical examples because they're not afflicted with modern politics. The FBI was known to investigate and harass civil rights leaders during the civil rights movement. Suppose they want to do that today. Step one, come up with some pretext for why they should get a list of all the people who watched some video. It only has to be strong enough to get the list, not result in a conviction, because the point is only to get the list. Meanwhile the system is designed to punish them for a thin pretext by excluding the evidence when they go to charge someone and their lawyer provides context and an adversarial voice, but since their goal here isn't to gather evidence for a particular investigation, that's no deterrent. Step two, now that they have the list of people interested in this type of content they can go on a fishing expedition looking for ways to harass them or charge them with unrelated crimes. This harms them, they're innocent people, therefore this should be prevented. Ideally by never recording this type of information to begin with. There is a reason good librarians are wary about keeping a history of who borrowed a particular book.
- echelon 3y ago
  > They are, however, being harmed. No they're not. Which ones will live a day less of their lives? If I'm on surveillance footage near a crime scene, police have the right to look for me and question me. This isn't any different. It's just different sets of photons and electrons. I respect the rights to privacy, but a crime happened, and the police have the tools to investigate. It's barely an inconvenience. The burden of proof will still be on the investigators and prosecution to find out and show beyond a shadow of a doubt who performed the swatting.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > Which ones will live a day less of their lives? Your liberties encompass so much more than this and a government that treads on them recklessly does far more damage than to simply waste an individuals time. > It's barely an inconvenience. You assume it's not. How would you verify this? Why should you have to?

godelski 3y ago

Well I forgot to link but from the wiki Other commentators have echoed the principle. Benjamin Franklin stated it as: "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" I went with Franklin because we are specifically talking America but let's be honest, the number doesn't matter and it seems you agree. Let's focus on that. Because I'm 100% with you, this isn't even people who have been accused. Which even those accused have rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

jameshart 3y ago
You've still got the ratio backwards. Franklin says if you know 101 people watched a video, and 100 of them are guilty of a crime, you can't just round up all 101 and throw them in jail. I.e., if you have a standard of punishment that would convict even one innocent person for every 100 guilty people it catches, it's not a good standard. Which I think we can all agree with. But that's not what's happening here, is it?
- chii 3y ago
  so it is considered punishment to have the watch information revealed to the state?
- godelski 3y ago
  > you can't just round up all 101 and throw them in jail Yes. "100 people" (or whatever) had their rights violated. Sure, not as bad as jail, but it is still in the spirit. I'm not sure why you think I have it backwards, I think we're just using different perspectives. But I'm not into being pedantic if we understand one another.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> innocent people, in your formulation, though, are not being punished for a crime. They're not even being accused of a crime. They are, however, being harmed. It's easier to use historical examples because they're not afflicted with modern politics. The FBI was known to investigate and harass civil rights leaders during the civil rights movement. Suppose they want to do that today. Step one, come up with some pretext for why they should get a list of all the people who watched some video. It only has to be strong enough to get the list, not result in a conviction, because the point is only to get the list. Meanwhile the system is designed to punish them for a thin pretext by excluding the evidence when they go to charge someone and their lawyer provides context and an adversarial voice, but since their goal here isn't to gather evidence for a particular investigation, that's no deterrent. Step two, now that they have the list of people interested in this type of content they can go on a fishing expedition looking for ways to harass them or charge them with unrelated crimes. This harms them, they're innocent people, therefore this should be prevented. Ideally by never recording this type of information to begin with. There is a reason good librarians are wary about keeping a history of who borrowed a particular book.

echelon 3y ago
> They are, however, being harmed. No they're not. Which ones will live a day less of their lives? If I'm on surveillance footage near a crime scene, police have the right to look for me and question me. This isn't any different. It's just different sets of photons and electrons. I respect the rights to privacy, but a crime happened, and the police have the tools to investigate. It's barely an inconvenience. The burden of proof will still be on the investigators and prosecution to find out and show beyond a shadow of a doubt who performed the swatting.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > Which ones will live a day less of their lives? Your liberties encompass so much more than this and a government that treads on them recklessly does far more damage than to simply waste an individuals time. > It's barely an inconvenience. You assume it's not. How would you verify this? Why should you have to?