7 ms·

> Just because a crime happened doesn't mean someone has to be punished for it irrespective of their actual guilt. The failure to prosecute the case of someon

> Just because a crime happened doesn't mean someone has to be punished for it irrespective of their actual guilt. The failure to prosecute the case of someone attacking someone else in their home merely creates an incentive for people to enact more violence in response, because the system fails to ensure baseline safety and won't be able to hold them accountable for their revenge. Punishment for violence against others is required to have a peaceable society. You can argue what you are, but you're advocating for a world of anarchy and uncontested violence.

soraminazuki 7y ago
I can hardly see why respecting due process leads to anarchism or violence.
dahfizz 7y ago
In your scenario, why wouldn't people take revenge on each other by making false accusations and getting their enemies thrown in jail? It's not like putting people in prison is a peaceful thing. It's a very violent ordeal, it's just violence that the state perpetrates on your behalf. We have to be sure that it's worth while.
- NotAnEconomist 7y ago
  > I ended up trying a case where the accused had allegedly gone to the victim's home, knocked on the door, then barged in and punched the victim a few times when he answered the door. Hospital records and photos meant no-one disputed the victim had been punched. But what evidence was there that the accused was the attacker? Only the eyewitness testimony of the accused and his wife. Because we're not talking about an abstract situation of sans evidence accusations, and because that's already a problem -- even without eyewitness testimony being admissible. We're talking about the different rates of bad things we can have in real compromises we can enact for real situations: if you go so far towards never convicting the innocent that you never convict violent home invasions, society will break down. You can think that's justice, I was just connecting the choice with the outcome.
EliRivers 7y ago
As counterpoint, one could say that you're advocating for a world in which it is better to sentence an innocent person for a crime than to let the crime go unpunished.

soraminazuki 7y ago

I can hardly see why respecting due process leads to anarchism or violence.

dahfizz 7y ago

In your scenario, why wouldn't people take revenge on each other by making false accusations and getting their enemies thrown in jail? It's not like putting people in prison is a peaceful thing. It's a very violent ordeal, it's just violence that the state perpetrates on your behalf. We have to be sure that it's worth while.

NotAnEconomist 7y ago
> I ended up trying a case where the accused had allegedly gone to the victim's home, knocked on the door, then barged in and punched the victim a few times when he answered the door. Hospital records and photos meant no-one disputed the victim had been punched. But what evidence was there that the accused was the attacker? Only the eyewitness testimony of the accused and his wife. Because we're not talking about an abstract situation of sans evidence accusations, and because that's already a problem -- even without eyewitness testimony being admissible. We're talking about the different rates of bad things we can have in real compromises we can enact for real situations: if you go so far towards never convicting the innocent that you never convict violent home invasions, society will break down. You can think that's justice, I was just connecting the choice with the outcome.

EliRivers 7y ago

As counterpoint, one could say that you're advocating for a world in which it is better to sentence an innocent person for a crime than to let the crime go unpunished.