by Novorobo » Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:12 pm
Socialist Nordia wrote:Oh shit, let's hope we don't have to take in any /pol/ refugees.
by Ashmoria » Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:17 pm
by Pope Joan » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:34 pm
by Chessmistress » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:38 pm
by Pope Joan » Sat Feb 13, 2016 2:42 pm
Chessmistress wrote:I strongly agree with publishing the name of the accused, always, because such information can save other women making them aware he can be a threat.
by Nordrgard » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:07 pm
Ashmoria wrote:if a person is formally charged with a crime then it needs to be made public.
if he is just THOUGHT to be maybe chargeable sometime in the future its best not to soil his reputation by naming him when he may never face legal proceedings.
by Chessmistress » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:16 pm
Pope Joan wrote:Chessmistress wrote:I strongly agree with publishing the name of the accused, always, because such information can save other women making them aware he can be a threat.
Until proven guilty, these people are presumed innocent.
Supposedly.
How do you propose to keep these innocent people from being harmed by false accusations?
Remember that the Innocence Project, started in Illinois and now replicated in many states and law schools, has used DNA evidence to prove the innocence of CONVICTS who had been arrested by police, charged by DAs, tried and found guilty by judges and juries. Yet they were completely innocent.
Let us please not be so quick to condemn.
by New Grestin » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:37 pm
Chessmistress wrote:I strongly agree with publishing the name of the accused, always, because such information can save other women making them aware he can be a threat.
Let’s not dwell on our corpse strewn past. Let’s celebrate our corpse strewn future!
Head Bartender for The Pub | The Para-Verse | Writing Advice from a Pretentious Jerk | I write stuff | Arbitrary Political Numbers- Best Worldbuilding - 2016 (Community Choice)
- Best Horror/Thriller RP for THE ZONE - 2016 (Community Choice)
by Blakullar » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:03 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Pope Joan wrote:
Until proven guilty, these people are presumed innocent.
Supposedly.
How do you propose to keep these innocent people from being harmed by false accusations?
Remember that the Innocence Project, started in Illinois and now replicated in many states and law schools, has used DNA evidence to prove the innocence of CONVICTS who had been arrested by police, charged by DAs, tried and found guilty by judges and juries. Yet they were completely innocent.
Let us please not be so quick to condemn.
I didn't say they're guilty.
I said that since there's a chance they're guilty, publishing their names can save other women.
Saving other women should be the priority, much more than the temporary embarassement of the few innocent accuseds: just only 2% accusations are false.
by Ashworth-Attwater » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:05 pm
by Twilight Imperium » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:09 pm
Chessmistress wrote:
I didn't say they're guilty.
I said that since there's a chance they're guilty, publishing their names can save other women.
Saving other women should be the priority, much more than the temporary embarassement of the few innocent accuseds: just only 2% accusations are false.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:31 pm
by States of Glory » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:58 pm
by Vassenor » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:19 pm
by Nordrgard » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:32 pm
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:You seem to make a distinction between 'acquitted' and 'proven innocent'. While there might exist such a thing in the mind of your average person, that is not a legal distinction to make. A judge can't say "well, I don't have enough evidence to convict you, but I think you might have done it, so... We're going to give some sort of half punishment". That sentiment is based on basic misunderstanding of court procedure and legal principle. So no, those names should not be released.
The US should really consider changing their attitude to crime and convicted criminals in general. People who served their time served their time, after all. That should be enough, no need to add insult to injury.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:33 pm
Nordrgard wrote:Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:You seem to make a distinction between 'acquitted' and 'proven innocent'. While there might exist such a thing in the mind of your average person, that is not a legal distinction to make. A judge can't say "well, I don't have enough evidence to convict you, but I think you might have done it, so... We're going to give some sort of half punishment". That sentiment is based on basic misunderstanding of court procedure and legal principle. So no, those names should not be released.
The US should really consider changing their attitude to crime and convicted criminals in general. People who served their time served their time, after all. That should be enough, no need to add insult to injury.
Depends on the crime. Murder should never be forgiven.
by Costa Fierro » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:37 pm
Chessmistress wrote:I strongly agree with publishing the name of the accused, always, because such information can save other women making them aware he can be a threat.
by Wisconsin9 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:44 pm
Chessmistress wrote:Pope Joan wrote:
Until proven guilty, these people are presumed innocent.
Supposedly.
How do you propose to keep these innocent people from being harmed by false accusations?
Remember that the Innocence Project, started in Illinois and now replicated in many states and law schools, has used DNA evidence to prove the innocence of CONVICTS who had been arrested by police, charged by DAs, tried and found guilty by judges and juries. Yet they were completely innocent.
Let us please not be so quick to condemn.
I didn't say they're guilty.
I said that since there's a chance they're guilty, publishing their names can save other women.
Saving other women should be the priority, much more than the temporary embarassement of the few innocent accuseds: just only 2% accusations are false.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:52 pm
Chessmistress wrote:I strongly agree with publishing the name of the accused, always, because such information can save other women making them aware he can be a threat.
by Wisconsin9 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:55 pm
by Mankind Redefined » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:56 pm
Chessmistress wrote:I strongly agree with publishing the name of the accused, always, because such information can save other women making them aware he can be a threat.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:59 pm
by Vassenor » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:02 pm
Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:I think that the government should stay out of it.
Freedom of speech and of the press should guarantee that people can go to the press with their story and that those stories can be published.
by Coalition of Minor Planets » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:05 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Hidrandia, Hurdergaryp, Masing, Ors Might, Sateru, Senkaku, Shrillland, The chocolates, The Jamesian Republic, Unmet Player, Warvick, Xind
Advertisement