3 ms·

> We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. If we do, then my suggestion should be easy to implement and will only impact a tiny minority of cases.

> We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. If we do, then my suggestion should be easy to implement and will only impact a tiny minority of cases. Of course, in this case it's pretty clear that the prosecution made up a bunch of charges that they knew they'd lose on to try to drain the resources of the people they were charging, as well as punish them pre-emptively. The prosecution also clearly broke the rules in other ways, eg by getting a mistrial when they kept on bringing up sex trafficking, a crime the Backpage founders simply weren't charged with. There are plenty of actual criminals in the world that need to be prosecuted. This case is clearly a politically motivated exception.

gnicholas 2y ago
Sounds like a false dichotomy between "cases that will always result in guilty verdicts" and "cases that the prosecution knew they'd lose but brought anyway to drain resources". You don't seem to recognize that there are many, many cases that could go either way, based on how judges rule about evidentiary matters, what the composition of the jury is, etc. As someone who was a lawyer for years, and who has served on a jury, I have seen the ways that things can evolve in unexpected ways. IMO the vast majority of cases could go either way, depending on how rulings and jury composition turn out. Any system that doles out taxpayer money whenever the prosecution doesn't run the table is utterly naive. It would result in less prosecution, more criminals going free, and more victimization by people we didn't lock up.
- iraqmtpizza 2y ago
  Yeah, cause then prosecutors would actually have to look for exculpatory evidence before charging instead of just sitting on their asses and relying on juries assuming guilt (because why else would someone be on trial?)
  - MRtecno98 2y ago
    That... sounds like an unreasonable bias to me
    - iraqmtpizza 2y ago
      I think it's called a viewpoint. Not available in stores.

gnicholas 2y ago

Sounds like a false dichotomy between "cases that will always result in guilty verdicts" and "cases that the prosecution knew they'd lose but brought anyway to drain resources". You don't seem to recognize that there are many, many cases that could go either way, based on how judges rule about evidentiary matters, what the composition of the jury is, etc. As someone who was a lawyer for years, and who has served on a jury, I have seen the ways that things can evolve in unexpected ways. IMO the vast majority of cases could go either way, depending on how rulings and jury composition turn out. Any system that doles out taxpayer money whenever the prosecution doesn't run the table is utterly naive. It would result in less prosecution, more criminals going free, and more victimization by people we didn't lock up.

iraqmtpizza 2y ago
Yeah, cause then prosecutors would actually have to look for exculpatory evidence before charging instead of just sitting on their asses and relying on juries assuming guilt (because why else would someone be on trial?)
- MRtecno98 2y ago
  That... sounds like an unreasonable bias to me
  - iraqmtpizza 2y ago
    I think it's called a viewpoint. Not available in stores.