Replies

Better ten guilty go free than one innocent hang and that sort of thing.

The purpose of a trial is to separate the guilty from the innocent. If you can think up a more perfect method to do this, great. But the hard truth is that it is impossible to guarantee the protection of innocent people 100%, just as collateral casualties and friendly fire cannot be 100% eliminated from war. This does not mean we should eliminate just punishment from those that are guilty to every reasonable measure.

Even if those ten guilty kill ten more innocents? How about 100? 1000? What if I propose it is better to let everyone who does not have their crime on video tape with 10 witnesses go free, lest we make a judicial error against an innocent with 10 lying enemies be jailed? The error you make is that it's not an either/or situation.

No, I actually believe in the reasonable doubt standard. If reasonable doubt is introduced into a case, it is the prosecutor's responsibility to address it. Your example is as exagerrated as my example of all policemen shooting suspected criminals on sight. The crime rate would go down and criminals would commit less crimes. That still doesn't make it a good idea.

But the hard truth is that it is impossible to guarantee the protection of innocent people 100%

Nobody is saying that. that's why we have the "reasonable doubt" standard. I agree with that standard. But that means that when reasonable doubt is introduced into a case where the defendent "probably' did the crime, if that doubt isn't addressed in the trial, the defendent must be found not guilty. Not innocent, but not guilty. We can't guarantee the protection of innocent people 100% but I believe in this standard because I think it is the best possible way (of course not foolproof) to protect the rights of the accused.