6 ms·

Better we let 10 criminals go free than violate the god-given right to privacy of 1 innocent.

by Danjoe4 10mo ago

dngray 10mo ago
There is no god. You can bet the persons who have the magical keys to all the communications will come close to it though. The world won't fall apart because people have secrets.
- notepad0x90 10mo ago
  All of the sentences you've written are incorrect.
notepad0x90 10mo ago
For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.
- dngray 10mo ago
  > For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt. Except it doesn't work like that in practice. It would be nice if it did. Often a person can be found guilty simply by jury in a trial based on what they think a person might have done. That's reality, and it is the case in western would countries not some obscure dictatorship.
  - notepad0x90 10mo ago
    By your logic, we shouldn't arrest murderers? Even if they're caught on video, it could be a deepfake. It all comes down to people testifying something is real. it always comes down to convincing a jury or a judge that the defendant is guilty. This is a common pattern I'm seeing in recent discussions. There is a practical problem, so instead of fixing the problem, let's not use the system entirely. Perhaps for victimless crimes I would agree with you, but it is not for you or I but for the victims or whoever is survived by them to relinquish their demand for justice. For serious crimes, suspicion must be corroborated by evidence. hear-say, accusations or eye-witness testimony alone can't be used to even begin a trial.

Better we let 10 criminals go free than violate the god-given right to privacy of 1 innocent.

by Danjoe4 10mo ago

Better we let 10 criminals go free than violate the god-given right to privacy of 1 innocent.

dngray 10mo ago

There is no god. You can bet the persons who have the magical keys to all the communications will come close to it though. The world won't fall apart because people have secrets.

notepad0x90 10mo ago
All of the sentences you've written are incorrect.

notepad0x90 10mo ago

For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.

dngray 10mo ago
> For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt. Except it doesn't work like that in practice. It would be nice if it did. Often a person can be found guilty simply by jury in a trial based on what they think a person might have done. That's reality, and it is the case in western would countries not some obscure dictatorship.
- notepad0x90 10mo ago
  By your logic, we shouldn't arrest murderers? Even if they're caught on video, it could be a deepfake. It all comes down to people testifying something is real. it always comes down to convincing a jury or a judge that the defendant is guilty. This is a common pattern I'm seeing in recent discussions. There is a practical problem, so instead of fixing the problem, let's not use the system entirely. Perhaps for victimless crimes I would agree with you, but it is not for you or I but for the victims or whoever is survived by them to relinquish their demand for justice. For serious crimes, suspicion must be corroborated by evidence. hear-say, accusations or eye-witness testimony alone can't be used to even begin a trial.