aletheia made 3 comments; no response was made before comments were closed, ~1.5hrs after aletheia's last.
Zing :
10 May 2013 12:11:29pm
Police, court and prosecutors should only be punished in clear cases of incompetence or malice.
The public has confidence in the justice system when it makes the correct decision based on the available facts.
If the court was expected to be perfect, then we wouldn't have courts of higher appeal.
The public has confidence in the justice system when it makes the correct decision based on the available facts.
If the court was expected to be perfect, then we wouldn't have courts of higher appeal.
aletheia :
10 May 2013 3:48:42pmZing: "Police, court and prosecutors should only be punished in clear cases of incompetence or malice."
Agreed, especially when there is blatant /prima facie/ evidence of an on-going vicious, murdering home-invasion/burglary, and that evidence is not followed up by SWAT-teams; arrest, prosecution and then the imposition of appropriate punishment, with the stolen land/property revesting, and acceptable reparations paid by the perpetrators (including foregone rent) to the improperly dispossessed erstwhile legal owner/occupiers. Of course, the very worst in such a situation, is that the vicious, terrorising home-invader/burglars are left to continue their foul crimes – which, as I'm assuming Zing would agree, is a massive miscarriage of justice on top of the exposure of the public to further mortal danger.
Zing :
10 May 2013 1:24:52pm
There is a fairly standard definition of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".
It means that irrespective of your actual guilt, a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it.
Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks.
It means that irrespective of your actual guilt, a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it.
Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks.
...
aletheia :
10 May 2013 6:25:05pmZing: "... a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it."
Let's say we have means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation, and even a confession and a plea-bargain.
All above previously demonstrated, some including the latter two are mentioned here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4675324.html#m1597260
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4675324.html#m1597339
Sooo, how reasonable is it, to a) assume a conviction would follow a court-case, and b) who do we hold responsible for no court-case, and exposing the region to a danger not theoretical, but almost continually seen to be fatally real?aletheia :
10 May 2013 6:48:07pmZing: "Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks."
Cynical, much? When the innocent persons have been continually getting punished, since the first alien invaders armed themselves behind an iron wall?
Comment: See 'acquiescence' in some definitions; no response is taken as agreement (at least until point acceptably negated), meanwhile IF an assertion is made contrary to an uncontested fact THEN that response will be deemed out of order.
No comments:
Post a Comment