4 ms·
You should invent bets. If the prosecutor bets the evidence is useless and it the defendants gets the opposite, we unveil the evidence and if the outcomes turns
by aragot 13y ago
You should invent bets. If the prosecutor bets the evidence is useless and it the defendants gets the opposite, we unveil the evidence and if the outcomes turns over, the prosecutor gets double the penalty the defendant would have taken.
The upside is, it won't affect trials where the accused is guilty. But it will affect trials where the prosecutor is.
- shitgoose 13y agoHold government officials personally liable for their actions? Impossible! That would make us into some sort of anarchy, not civilized society, wouldn't it?
- brazzy 13y agoPlease tell me you're joking and don't really want to see all major criminals go free because nobody will risk prosecuting them. Or do you think you live in a fairy tale world where there is only ever doubt about evidence when the accused is innocent?
- aragot 13y agoExactly the rhetoric which leads to the unfairness of the system. Yes, if there's a single doubt about the evidence, you _must not_ frame the person. We're talking here about the justice system refusing to return evidence which could help the defense, and the accused was found innocent. It's not like they acted well anyway. Tampering with jail time _must be_ a high pressure job for those who execute it. No mistake allowed.