4 ms·

In other words...you've already decided that every defendant is guilty. "A defendant is a person or entity accused of a crime in criminal prosecution or a pers

In other words...you've already decided that every defendant is guilty. "A defendant is a person or entity accused of a crime in criminal prosecution or a person or entity against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case." [0] I wouldn't say what he said is untrue, you're just refuting his statement based on the definition of a defendant (whether a defendant is someone charged with a crime vs being prosecuted against). Sounds like you have different definitions that lead to slightly different relations of the same situation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defendant

dllthomas 12y ago
I think there's an important distinction the parent was making that isn't just down to definitions. A prosecutor has two roles. One is to select people to make into defendants, and the other is to try and get those defendants convicted. If we imagine that a prosecutor cannot get an innocent person convicted, then judging them by conviction rate is first judging them by their ability to choose the guilty to prosecute. You've not decided that every defendant is guilty - you've decided that every defendant should be guilty. Imagine a sieve, designed to collect pebbles larger than 30mm. If you've already decided that every pebble collected is larger than 30mm, you have no need to examine the performance of the sieve. If you're wondering whether the sieve is catching smaller things, then you look at the collected pebbles, and it is quite reasonable to count smaller pebbles against the performance of the sieve. Of course, our assumption there certainly doesn't hold perfectly, and may very well hold poorly enough that we significantly reward "ability to get the innocent convicted". But dragonwriter basically said as much.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> In other words...you've already decided that every defendant is guilty. No, pretty much the opposite -- instead, you are assuming that not all defendants are guilty, but that all non-guilty defendants (and only non-guilty defendants) will be exonerated, such that the the rate of non-conviction represents the rate at which the prosecutor attempts to prosecute innocent victims. > I wouldn't say what he said is untrue, you're just refuting his statement based on the definition of a defendant (whether a defendant is someone charged with a crime vs being prosecuted against). Those aren't different definitions, they are alternative phrasing of the same definitions. Filing charges is initiating prosecution.

dllthomas 12y ago

I think there's an important distinction the parent was making that isn't just down to definitions. A prosecutor has two roles. One is to select people to make into defendants, and the other is to try and get those defendants convicted. If we imagine that a prosecutor cannot get an innocent person convicted, then judging them by conviction rate is first judging them by their ability to choose the guilty to prosecute. You've not decided that every defendant is guilty - you've decided that every defendant should be guilty. Imagine a sieve, designed to collect pebbles larger than 30mm. If you've already decided that every pebble collected is larger than 30mm, you have no need to examine the performance of the sieve. If you're wondering whether the sieve is catching smaller things, then you look at the collected pebbles, and it is quite reasonable to count smaller pebbles against the performance of the sieve. Of course, our assumption there certainly doesn't hold perfectly, and may very well hold poorly enough that we significantly reward "ability to get the innocent convicted". But dragonwriter basically said as much.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> In other words...you've already decided that every defendant is guilty. No, pretty much the opposite -- instead, you are assuming that not all defendants are guilty, but that all non-guilty defendants (and only non-guilty defendants) will be exonerated, such that the the rate of non-conviction represents the rate at which the prosecutor attempts to prosecute innocent victims. > I wouldn't say what he said is untrue, you're just refuting his statement based on the definition of a defendant (whether a defendant is someone charged with a crime vs being prosecuted against). Those aren't different definitions, they are alternative phrasing of the same definitions. Filing charges is initiating prosecution.