Punishing The Innocent

[airplanemechanic]

What? I'm talking about people who were charged with crimes and the charges later dropped. Not about anyone convicted of anything. I'm talking about an innocent man, held in jail for years, and later released.

People convicted of murder after 30 years, who got life, will be released anyway. Life is only 25 years.

 

[ChrisL]

What? I'm talking about people who were charged with crimes and the charges later dropped. Not about anyone convicted of anything. I'm talking about an innocent man, held in jail for years, and later released.

People convicted of murder after 30 years, who got life, will be released anyway. Life is only 25 years.

So . . . what is your point? I never said an innocent person should STAY in jail or anything . . .

 

[ChrisL]

People convicted of murder after 30 years, who got life, will be released anyway. Life is only 25 years.

Yes? This is the part I disagree with. A convicted murderer should have to serve life in prison. IF they are found to be innocent, then they can be released. I don't get what you're suggesting here.

 

[airplanemechanic]

You said this:

Of course they have to arrest and detain suspects while they do an investigation!!! They can't just let them escape! There's nothing "wrongful" about it.

And it can take YEARS to do an investigation. So are you ok with an innocent man being held in jail on a high bond he can't post for years with nothing more than a "charged are dropped" message from the courts?

 

[ChrisL]

You said this:

Of course they have to arrest and detain suspects while they do an investigation!!! They can't just let them escape! There's nothing "wrongful" about it.

And it can take YEARS to do an investigation. So are you ok with an innocent man being held in jail on a high bond he can't post for years?

If they are suspected of murder? Yes. That's pretty much what they do now. Most people who are suspected of murder are locked up until their court dates, which can also take years.

Are you okay with releasing a potential murderer so that he could get away and evade the law, possibly murder again and put the rest of society at risk?

 

[airplanemechanic]

What if it had nothing to do with murder? What if it was a computer crime? You know, someone can be held in jail for years on a bogus non violent crime too right? You're the one who keeps harping on murder, I never once mentioned a type of crime.

 

[ChrisL]

What if it had nothing to do with murder? What if it was a computer crime? You know, someone can be held in jail for years on a bogus non violent crime too right? You're the one who keeps harping on murder, I never once mentioned a type of crime.

Well that is what I was talking about originally in the post of mine that you quoted. Didn't I specify that?

 

[ChrisL]

What if it had nothing to do with murder? What if it was a computer crime? You know, someone can be held in jail for years on a bogus non violent crime too right? You're the one who keeps harping on murder, I never once mentioned a type of crime.

I just checked, and I guess I didn't specify that, but that is what I'm referring to. Murder charges.

Rape and pedophilia too. These types of people are TOO risky to release back into society until they are found innocent. Might sound unfair, but you have to do what you have to do to protect society.

 

[Politico]

But you did say that there was "every reason to doubt it". Did you not say that? And, if you did say it, which it clearly shows in your comment, why would you say it, and what is the "every reason"? Just curious. Thanks.

With all due respect how can you be so dense? The 'every reason' is it is the internets where anyone can say anything.. It is that simple. I did not challenge the article. I would ask why you only felt it was important enough to post on one site 12 years ago. Every other author would make sure their article appeared in 100 other places.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Of course they have to arrest and detain suspects while they do an investigation!!! They can't just let them escape! There's nothing "wrongful" about it. Our justice system may not be perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Ours is the best out there, however. We just need to abolish the death penalty which gives the state the "right" to legally kill citizens. Now that is something that should concern everyone. There is no "getting released" once the state has taken your life.

Ok, what happens to someone arrested when innocent and given a bond they can't make? They sit in jail, lose their job, their house, their families, everything and it can be YEARS later that the courts say "sorry" and let them go.

And you think this is ok?

No, it is NOT OK, not by a long shot. It's injustice, very sad, and very wrong. No one should ever be in jail or prison unless they are guilty of a crime.

 

[Sonny Clark]

But you did say that there was "every reason to doubt it". Did you not say that? And, if you did say it, which it clearly shows in your comment, why would you say it, and what is the "every reason"? Just curious. Thanks.

With all due respect how can you be so dense? The 'every reason' is it is the internets where anyone can say anything.. It is that simple. I did not challenge the article. I would ask why you only felt it was important enough to post on one site 12 years ago. Every other author would make sure their article appeared in 100 other places.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I wrote it for one site. But, it's very possible that I posted it elsewhere also. I don't remember exactly where I posted it other than that one site. Back then, I was posting on several sites almost daily. I didn't take notes and record every single site that each of my pieces appeared on. Also, I'm NOT dense, thank you. In addition, I never said that I felt it important to post it anywhere at all. It was a subject matter that was in the news, so I wrote the piece in response to the current news. I wrote many pieces for a long time. I wish I could find all of them. Many of them would certainly apply today. I still have the newspaper that published my first piece. It was a local paper where I use to live. I've had several published in newspapers, in several states. Just curious, why are you questioning me on the piece?

 

[Politico]

Again I am not questioning the piece.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Again I am not questioning the piece.

I understand that. Yes, you've said that already. But, you continue to question me? I'm just curious as to why.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course they have to arrest and detain suspects while they do an investigation!!! They can't just let them escape! There's nothing "wrongful" about it. Our justice system may not be perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Ours is the best out there, however. We just need to abolish the death penalty which gives the state the "right" to legally kill citizens. Now that is something that should concern everyone. There is no "getting released" once the state has taken your life.

Ok, what happens to someone arrested when innocent and given a bond they can't make? They sit in jail, lose their job, their house, their families, everything and it can be YEARS later that the courts say "sorry" and let them go.

And you think this is ok?

No, it is NOT OK, not by a long shot. It's injustice, very sad, and very wrong. No one should ever be in jail or prison unless they are guilty of a crime.

OK, put it like this. A guy has been raping little girls and they find who they believe it is. You think they should let him go in the meantime and risk children on account of him? Just because he MIGHT be innocent. Who would pay the bigger price here? The children or the guy who has to sit in jail for a year?

You HAVE to weigh the pros and cons.

 

[ChrisL]

But you did say that there was "every reason to doubt it". Did you not say that? And, if you did say it, which it clearly shows in your comment, why would you say it, and what is the "every reason"? Just curious. Thanks.

With all due respect how can you be so dense? The 'every reason' is it is the internets where anyone can say anything.. It is that simple. I did not challenge the article. I would ask why you only felt it was important enough to post on one site 12 years ago. Every other author would make sure their article appeared in 100 other places.

Why don't you address the topic instead of being a douche?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Of course they have to arrest and detain suspects while they do an investigation!!! They can't just let them escape! There's nothing "wrongful" about it. Our justice system may not be perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Ours is the best out there, however. We just need to abolish the death penalty which gives the state the "right" to legally kill citizens. Now that is something that should concern everyone. There is no "getting released" once the state has taken your life.

Ok, what happens to someone arrested when innocent and given a bond they can't make? They sit in jail, lose their job, their house, their families, everything and it can be YEARS later that the courts say "sorry" and let them go.

And you think this is ok?

No, it is NOT OK, not by a long shot. It's injustice, very sad, and very wrong. No one should ever be in jail or prison unless they are guilty of a crime.

OK, put it like this. A guy has been raping little girls and they find who they believe it is. You think they should let him go in the meantime and risk children on account of him? Just because he MIGHT be innocent. Who would pay the bigger price here? The children or the guy who has to sit in jail for a year?

You HAVE to weigh the pros and cons.

Assumptions do not constitute guilt. "IF" they believe they have the right person, track his every move while they prove their suspicions. Track him around the clock and prove his guilt before taking his freedom away and subjecting him to public embarrassment. Otherwise, continue the investigation to determine if the guilty party might be someone else. Never ever take someone's freedom away on assumption or suspicion. We have way too many innocent people shamed before the public and wrongfully jailed because investigators are too damn lazy to do their job before throwing someone behind bars for a crime they didn't commit.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course they have to arrest and detain suspects while they do an investigation!!! They can't just let them escape! There's nothing "wrongful" about it. Our justice system may not be perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Ours is the best out there, however. We just need to abolish the death penalty which gives the state the "right" to legally kill citizens. Now that is something that should concern everyone. There is no "getting released" once the state has taken your life.

Ok, what happens to someone arrested when innocent and given a bond they can't make? They sit in jail, lose their job, their house, their families, everything and it can be YEARS later that the courts say "sorry" and let them go.

And you think this is ok?

No, it is NOT OK, not by a long shot. It's injustice, very sad, and very wrong. No one should ever be in jail or prison unless they are guilty of a crime.

OK, put it like this. A guy has been raping little girls and they find who they believe it is. You think they should let him go in the meantime and risk children on account of him? Just because he MIGHT be innocent. Who would pay the bigger price here? The children or the guy who has to sit in jail for a year?

You HAVE to weigh the pros and cons.

Assumptions do not constitute guilt. "IF" they believe they have the right person, track his every move while they prove their suspicions. Track him around the clock and prove his guilt before taking his freedom away and subjecting him to public embarrassment. Otherwise, continue the investigation to determine if the guilty party might be someone else. Never ever take someone's freedom away on assumption or suspicion. We have way too many innocent people shamed before the public and wrongfully jailed because investigators are too damn lazy to do their job before throwing someone behind bars for a crime they didn't commit.

Like house arrest and ankle bracelets? I wouldn't have a problem with that. They are still going to have to lose some freedom because you just cannot put people in danger.

You have no idea how many "innocent" people there are behind bars. Although there are such cases, they are not the norm. The police have to follow procedure. A grand jury has to indict, etc., etc.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Of course they have to arrest and detain suspects while they do an investigation!!! They can't just let them escape! There's nothing "wrongful" about it. Our justice system may not be perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Ours is the best out there, however. We just need to abolish the death penalty which gives the state the "right" to legally kill citizens. Now that is something that should concern everyone. There is no "getting released" once the state has taken your life.

Ok, what happens to someone arrested when innocent and given a bond they can't make? They sit in jail, lose their job, their house, their families, everything and it can be YEARS later that the courts say "sorry" and let them go.

And you think this is ok?

No, it is NOT OK, not by a long shot. It's injustice, very sad, and very wrong. No one should ever be in jail or prison unless they are guilty of a crime.

OK, put it like this. A guy has been raping little girls and they find who they believe it is. You think they should let him go in the meantime and risk children on account of him? Just because he MIGHT be innocent. Who would pay the bigger price here? The children or the guy who has to sit in jail for a year?

You HAVE to weigh the pros and cons.

Assumptions do not constitute guilt. "IF" they believe they have the right person, track his every move while they prove their suspicions. Track him around the clock and prove his guilt before taking his freedom away and subjecting him to public embarrassment. Otherwise, continue the investigation to determine if the guilty party might be someone else. Never ever take someone's freedom away on assumption or suspicion. We have way too many innocent people shamed before the public and wrongfully jailed because investigators are too damn lazy to do their job before throwing someone behind bars for a crime they didn't commit.

Like house arrest and ankle bracelets? I wouldn't have a problem with that. They are still going to have to lose some freedom because you just cannot put people in danger.

You have no idea how many "innocent" people there are behind bars. Although there are such cases, they are not the norm. The police have to follow procedure. A grand jury has to indict, etc., etc.

If the person is not guilty, why the house arrest and the ankle bracelet? We should only do that to the guilty, not a person that hasn't been convicted of a crime.

 

[ChrisL]

Ok, what happens to someone arrested when innocent and given a bond they can't make? They sit in jail, lose their job, their house, their families, everything and it can be YEARS later that the courts say "sorry" and let them go.

And you think this is ok?

No, it is NOT OK, not by a long shot. It's injustice, very sad, and very wrong. No one should ever be in jail or prison unless they are guilty of a crime.

OK, put it like this. A guy has been raping little girls and they find who they believe it is. You think they should let him go in the meantime and risk children on account of him? Just because he MIGHT be innocent. Who would pay the bigger price here? The children or the guy who has to sit in jail for a year?

You HAVE to weigh the pros and cons.

Assumptions do not constitute guilt. "IF" they believe they have the right person, track his every move while they prove their suspicions. Track him around the clock and prove his guilt before taking his freedom away and subjecting him to public embarrassment. Otherwise, continue the investigation to determine if the guilty party might be someone else. Never ever take someone's freedom away on assumption or suspicion. We have way too many innocent people shamed before the public and wrongfully jailed because investigators are too damn lazy to do their job before throwing someone behind bars for a crime they didn't commit.

Like house arrest and ankle bracelets? I wouldn't have a problem with that. They are still going to have to lose some freedom because you just cannot put people in danger.

You have no idea how many "innocent" people there are behind bars. Although there are such cases, they are not the norm. The police have to follow procedure. A grand jury has to indict, etc., etc.

If the person is not guilty, why the house arrest and the ankle bracelet? We should only do that to the guilty, not a person that hasn't been convicted of a crime.

Like I told you. Read my post. You cannot let people suspected of committing a serious crime who could be a danger to society just go. That is stupidity.