3 ms·
...rather a guilty man gets off than an innocent being wrongly convicted... obviously. but you have to actually show that the possibility of a "plea bargain"
by jpwagner 14y ago
...rather a guilty man gets off than an innocent being wrongly convicted...
obviously. but you have to actually show that the possibility of a "plea bargain" trades one-for-one (or anything unreasonable) for your argument to be convincing.
- brudgers 14y agoThe idea that convicting the innocent is the ultimate injustice is not an argument, it is a moral stance. That moral stance accepts the possibility of human error to a degree which makes it impossible to meet the standard you propose.
- jpwagner 14y agoa "jury of your peers" is no more infallible
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y agoYou mean a jury of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty? The common man cares about Kim Kardassian, and what celeb is with who. Or sports..
- brudgers 14y agoThere aren't degrees of infallibility and a jury of one's peers may be less fallible.