3 ms·
Could I raise a somewhat academic question? The idea of conviction is binary: either you're convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt or you let the man go. In
by dalek_cannes 12y ago
Could I raise a somewhat academic question? The idea of conviction is binary: either you're convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt or you let the man go. In a way this is good, but in a way, because of it, prosecutors end up putting a lot of innocent people behind bars while defense attorneys get a lot of guilty people off the hook.
What if there is a slight -- repeat slight -- spectrum? Personally, I would not mind being theoretically "conditionally detained/penalized/sentenced" provided:
1. The penalty is low -- police surveillance, fine that will be returned if exonerated
2. You're compensated if exonerated
3. These penalties carry no more stigma than jury duty
A scheme like this might allow the criminal justice system to move a bit faster. Or does this sound completely outrageous?
- blueskin_ 12y agoIt sounds like how it might be if it was designed today by sane people.
- danieltillett 12y agoNo it is not a bad idea. The Scottish legal system has something along this lines with the "not proven" verdict [0]. You are not proven guilty, but at the same time the jury doesn't think you are innocent. It is something I would like to see used outside of Scotland. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
- icebraining 12y agoIsn't that the point of a misdemeanor vs felony? Probation ("police surveillance") and fines are usual punishments, as opposed to prison time. Traffic violations are also an example of a more "agile" system.
- roel_v 12y agoWell, either you did it or not. If it's not proven beyond reasonable doubt, we decide you didn't. What you're proposing is essentially 'you might have done it so we're going to slap you a bit'. But if we can't prove somebody did it beyond reasonable doubt, we should just aquit.