4 ms·

> the Federal government will do some very nasty things -- in court -- to people it knows are guilty but hard to convict of their actual crimes The government

> the Federal government will do some very nasty things -- in court -- to people it knows are guilty but hard to convict of their actual crimes The government can presume the guilt of a party they put on trial. But acting as if that presumption is in fact knowledge, and that such an ends justifies whatever means they require to get there, that is a subversion of justice, IMO. I would rather they didnt do that.

podperson 14y ago
They couldn't get Al Capone on criminal charges so they screwed him for tax evasion. Was that the "right thing" to do? In the end, we have to hold people accountable rather than expect a perfect set of rules to lead to a perfect set of outcomes -- there's no perfect set of rules, and even if there were people would interpret them and create imperfect outcomes. Speaking as someone with a logical mind, I used to get worked up about the imperfection of rules until it finally dawned on me that they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about. Do you recall the scene in Catch-22 when Nately flies his plane into the ground after accidentally killing someone, and the doctor who is listed as being on the plane doesn't bail out because he isn't actually on the plane, he's just collecting "flight time" to satisfy some idiotic bureaucratic rule. Despite the fact he's on the ground next to all the other people watching the disaster unfold, they decide he's dead and ignore him afterwards. My point is: the world is not actually like this.
- tomsaffell 14y ago
  I fully appreciate that perspective, and agree with they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about/ I was thinking through similar issues as I wrote my own comment. If I was a victim of one of these crimes I might even be swayed to subscribe to that view. But on balance, I think the damage done to the system as a whole (see angersock's comment for one example) outweighs the upside of getting one or two bad guys that wouldn't otherwise be caught. tldr: I'd choose system integrity/reputation over catching 100% of the bad guys. Loved Catch-22 btw.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    >> I'd choose system integrity/reputation over catching 100% of the bad guys. Pretty much my thought. The system is based on the fundamental belief that it is more harmful to convict an innocent person than to let a guilty one get away. This is why there is a built-in assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Al Capone is not a good example because he had a tremendous amount of influence via bribes, extortion, blackmail, assassinations, and the like. This is why he could not be convicted on criminal charges. He was basically an outlier.
  - swalkergibson 14y ago
    Whitey Bulger is on approximately the same plane as Al Capone. Just ask John Connolly, the FBI agent convicted of conspiring with him.

podperson 14y ago

They couldn't get Al Capone on criminal charges so they screwed him for tax evasion. Was that the "right thing" to do? In the end, we have to hold people accountable rather than expect a perfect set of rules to lead to a perfect set of outcomes -- there's no perfect set of rules, and even if there were people would interpret them and create imperfect outcomes. Speaking as someone with a logical mind, I used to get worked up about the imperfection of rules until it finally dawned on me that they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about. Do you recall the scene in Catch-22 when Nately flies his plane into the ground after accidentally killing someone, and the doctor who is listed as being on the plane doesn't bail out because he isn't actually on the plane, he's just collecting "flight time" to satisfy some idiotic bureaucratic rule. Despite the fact he's on the ground next to all the other people watching the disaster unfold, they decide he's dead and ignore him afterwards. My point is: the world is not actually like this.

tomsaffell 14y ago
I fully appreciate that perspective, and agree with they're all socially constructed, and it's the people you need to worry about/ I was thinking through similar issues as I wrote my own comment. If I was a victim of one of these crimes I might even be swayed to subscribe to that view. But on balance, I think the damage done to the system as a whole (see angersock's comment for one example) outweighs the upside of getting one or two bad guys that wouldn't otherwise be caught. tldr: I'd choose system integrity/reputation over catching 100% of the bad guys. Loved Catch-22 btw.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >> I'd choose system integrity/reputation over catching 100% of the bad guys. Pretty much my thought. The system is based on the fundamental belief that it is more harmful to convict an innocent person than to let a guilty one get away. This is why there is a built-in assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty.
enraged_camel 14y ago
Al Capone is not a good example because he had a tremendous amount of influence via bribes, extortion, blackmail, assassinations, and the like. This is why he could not be convicted on criminal charges. He was basically an outlier.
- swalkergibson 14y ago
  Whitey Bulger is on approximately the same plane as Al Capone. Just ask John Connolly, the FBI agent convicted of conspiring with him.