- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,889
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?
Or -
Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?
If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?
Or -
Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?
If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
I prefer the former, yet would also drastically change the sentencing criteria. I would use that individual's past convictions and future likelyhood (satistically based on recidivism rates for similar crimes) crime to establish the sentence. We now also use as mitgating factors, that which should be used as aggravating factors, e.g. drug/alcohol use, when determining sentences.
I definitely don't think drugs should be mitigating factors, but I also don't think they should be aggravating factors either. In reality, it should play absolutely zero role in sentencing. You are responsible for your actions, no matter what the situation. If you decide to do drugs or drink, control yourself and be responsible.
So DWI/DUI are OK so long as no "accident" results?
A DWI is the crime, it is not a factor in an unrelated crime.
IE: It shouldn't matter in sentencing for a murder trial whether the offender was drunk or not.
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?
Or - Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?
If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
I prefer the former, yet would also drastically change the sentencing criteria. I would use that individual's past convictions and future likelyhood (satistically based on recidivism rates for similar crimes) crime to establish the sentence. We now also use as mitgating factors, that which should be used as aggravating factors, e.g. drug/alcohol use, when determining sentences.
I definitely don't think drugs should be mitigating factors, but I also don't think they should be aggravating factors either. In reality, it should play absolutely zero role in sentencing. You are responsible for your actions, no matter what the situation. If you decide to do drugs or drink, control yourself and be responsible.
Where does the JURY play a role here?
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?
Or -
Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?
If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?
Or -
Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?
If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
You forgot the system we have now. THe one that subjects you to a trial due to you being "white" or a "white-hispanic" regardless of evidence.
I do not have a problem with the idea that any time a human being is shot dead in the USofA a trial is warranted?
A trial was definitely warranted for Zimmerman, what was not needed/necessary or warranted was the media hype and racial aspects of the case to over-take the entire country.
That's where things fell apart.
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?
Or -
Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?
If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?