Why Do We Focus on Innocence, not Guilt?

[Anathema]

We don't enforce laws against hearts and minds, only actions. Otherwise 100% would be in prison and there would literally be no one to serve as guards.

Ever driven more than 15mph overheated speed limit? That’s an arrestable offense. Jaywalking on a numbered state road? Arrestable offense. I could go on but I won’t waste either of our time. Most of us are guilty of far worse things than that, if we’re being honest.

 

[Anathema]

You want to put half the adults in the US in jail?

Only the criminal half

 

[Anathema]

So you’d rather see guilty until proven innocent?

Pretty much. If you’re really innocent you ought to be able to easily prove it. Especially in this day abdcafe

 

[Anathema]

What would be your alternative?

Get the courts out of the way of the LEOs doing their jobs. Let the officers do what’s necessary to get to the truth in these cases. Prosecute the mofos who impede investigations as accessories after the fact.

 

[Anathema]

And death penalty cases? Felony cases?

Yep. All felonies should receive capital punishment. Immediately appeals to the Stsre Suprene Coutt then SCOTUS… to be heard within 90 days. Once they’re done death within 72 hours.

 

[Darkwind]

I’ve wondered about this for years because it’s the exact opposite of how I would set up a Justice System…

Why the hell does our Legal System focus so much on making sure the innocent go free rather than making sure that the Guilty get appropriately punished for what they’ve done wrong?

It just seems so completely backwards to me. Especially in a society where so few people are truly innocent

Do you really lack the historical depth of knowledge to understand that?

I'm sorry, but when power corrupts, if you don't have such a system in place, you may as well get on your knees and start slobbering on whatever knob is offered to you so that you can remain out of jail.

The examples of power crushing the little guy is not a footnote in history.

IT IS HISTORY!

 

[Anathema]

Do you really lack the historical depth of knowledge to understand that?

I'm sorry, but when power corrupts, if you don't have such a system in place, you may as well get on your knees and start slobbering on whatever knob is offered to you so that you can remain out of jail.

The examples of power crushing the little guy is not a footnote in history.

IT IS HISTORY!

Power is Corruption. Corruption is Power. They cannot be separated. I’d rather have honest corruption than the lie of “justice” that this country gets by on today.

 

[Darkwind]

Power is Corruption. Corruption is Power. They cannot be separated. I’d rather have honest corruption than the lie of “justice” that this country gets by on today.

No one said anything about justice.

You asked why we focus on innocence over guilt.

Corruption is the precise reason why.

The Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence over corrupt power, doing away with its enemies through a trial by one's peers.

Is it perfect?

No. Nothing is.

It's just better than any other system tried in the entire history of mankind.

 

[Anathema]

The Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence over corrupt power, doing away with its enemies through a trial by one's peers.

Is it perfect?

No. Nothing is.

It's just better than any other system tried in the entire history of mankind.

I disagree. It’s just another proof of the naivety of the founding fathers. To believe that people are generally good (innocent) requires pretty much ignoring the totality of human nature. Putting barriers in the way of those trying to prosecute is even more ridiculous.

I trust the corrupt officials far more than the average citizen. I know what the official is gonna do. With the citizen it’s a total unknown.

 

[GMCGeneral]

And proudly so. Criminals are sub-human scum. They need to be punished quickly and harshly for the benefit of society as a whole.

See, there's a problem with that line of thinking. The US Constitution has safeguards against summary judgement against people ACCUSED of crimes. The 1964 Miranda ruling not only safeguards a suspect's Constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, but also can work to the prosecutor's advantage. This is why we have due process.
A person is arrested either by probable cause or warrant
His case goes before a Grand Jury, which does not decide guilt, but simply determines whether there is enough evidence to return a "True Bill" of indictment, a formal declaration of charges against a criminal defendant.
Then the case goes before the trial judge and Petit Jury. That trial does determine guilt, innocence, and in a capital case, sentence of death or life without parole.
If the defendant is found not guilty, another Constitutional protection is activated, known as Double Jeopardy. This means that the government doesn't get a second bite of that apple.
Plea deals are often worked out for a plethora of reasons, but the result is usually the same. Defendant stands convicted.

 

[Eman623]

Ever driven more than 15mph overheated speed limit? That’s an arrestable offense. Jaywalking on a numbered state road? Arrestable offense. I could go on but I won’t waste either of our time. Most of us are guilty of far worse things than that, if we’re being honest.

No one goes to prison for speeding or jaywalking. Got anything else?

 

[Anathema]

No one goes to prison for speeding or jaywalking.

Thats the point… they should be going to jail for it. We e decided not to enforce our own laws then were shocked when society doesn’t follow them.

 

[Hafar1014]

I’ve wondered about this for years because it’s the exact opposite of how I would set up a Justice System…

Why the hell does our Legal System focus so much on making sure the innocent go free rather than making sure that the Guilty get appropriately punished for what they’ve done wrong?

It just seems so completely backwards to me. Especially in a society where so few people are truly innocent

Its called freedom from the corruption of government

 

[Anathema]

See, there's a problem with that line of thinking. The US Constitution has safeguards against summary judgement against people ACCUSED of crimes. The 1964 Miranda ruling not only safeguards a suspect's Constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, but also can work to the prosecutor's advantage. This is why we have due process.
A person is arrested either by probable cause or warrant
His case goes before a Grand Jury, which does not decide guilt, but simply determines whether there is enough evidence to return a "True Bill" of indictment, a formal declaration of charges against a criminal defendant.
Then the case goes before the trial judge and Petit Jury. That trial does determine guilt, innocence, and in a capital case, sentence of death or life without parole.
If the defendant is found not guilty, another Constitutional protection is activated, known as Double Jeopardy. This means that the government doesn't get a second bite of that apple.
Plea deals are often worked out for a plethora of reasons, but the result is usually the same. Defendant stands convicted.

That whole system is ass backwards so far as I’m concerned . It protects the criminal over the victim, whether the victim is an individual, group,
or the citizenry as a whole.

My preference is for a system focused on ensuring that the individual(s) guilty of any particular crime are located, prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Simple as that.

 

[Anathema]

Its called freedom from the corruption of government

What if I trust the Goverbment, even knowing it’s coerrupt, more than my fellow citizens?

 

[Hafar1014]

What if I trust the Goverbment, even knowing it’s coerrupt, more than my fellow citizens?

Then you define yourself as an idiot.

 

[Anathema]

Then you define yourself as an idiot.

I can generally predict the actions of our corrupt government officials at most levels. The citizebry, however, is far too incompetent, uneducated, and chaotic to act in a predictable manner. Therefore I find it much better to side with the predictable morons than the unpredictable ones. Besisides, I know which group will win in the end.

 

[GMCGeneral]

That whole system is ass backwards so far as I’m concerned . It protects the criminal over the victim, whether the victim is an individual, group,
or the citizenry as a whole.

My preference is for a system focused on ensuring that the individual(s) guilty of any particular crime are located, prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Simple as that.

And yet you disregard the fact those protections are for EVERYONE. Accused included. Let me flip this on you. Based on your warped line of thinking. Would you want those Constitutional guarantees if YOU were being accused of a crime? I sure as shit would. I have had that happen to me. So I know of whence I speak.

 

[Anathema]

And yet you disregard the fact those protections are for EVERYONE. Accused included. Let me flip this on you. Based on your warped line of thinking. Would you want those Constitutional guarantees if YOU were being accused of a crime? I sure as shit would. I have had that happen to me. So I know of whence I speak.

No, I would not. If I’m guilty I plead guilty and accept the punishment. If I’m not guilty (not innocent) and I can’t prove it, then I accept the punishment. It’s that simple.

 

[Eman623]

Thats the point… they should be going to jail for it. We e decided not to enforce our own laws then were shocked when society doesn’t follow them.

People should go to prison for speeding and jaywalking? Seems a little totalitarian.

Or are you suggesting we shouldn't have laws against speeding more than 15 mph, or jaywalking? I can see the argument for that, but in many ways it would end up trading one problem (disrespect for laws) for another (drivers doing 70 in residential neighborhoods).