>>"Many innocent people being coerced to plead guilty" seems like an
>>inaccurate way to word this. JT
>
>I am using to the old-fashioned definition by "innocent people", which is
>to say people innocent of the actual crime they are charged with. Rather
>than the definition favoured by defenders of the American legal system,
>which appears to reserve the term "innocent" only for people who are
>innocent of any crime at all. Of course there are exceedingly few of us
>who can truly claim to be innocent according to your definition. Let he
>who is without sin cast the first stone then... BB
I am using the same definition, trust me. I'm curious, do you think the police in the US have lists of people that they think of committed some crime and then randomly pick an offense so they can charge one of these individuals with something? The odds of the being accused of a crime you did not commit is astronomically high. I'm not saying it never happens but without any proof to the contrary I'd say it happens no more or less per person prosecuted in the US than elsewhere. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested in seeing it. JT
>So it doesn't matter if the offense they are prosecuted for is one they
>aren't actually guilty of? They probably did something sometime.
>Something of a hit or miss approach to law enforcement I would suggest, in
>fact it is pretty much the justification that bent cops use to justify
>framing people. basically it is a corrupt argument that only a person who
>had no notion of justice would contemplate using. BB
I have not written anything to suggest any such thing. How could you possible take what I've written as suggesting that this is what is happening or that I believe this is happening? You are projecting your belief that this is so into this discussion with no evidence to support it. People are charged with the crime that they commit and not charged with dozens of other crime that they committed that are unknown or that there is no evidence. This is the way it works in an overwhelming majority of instances, just like everywhere else. JT
>A bigger issue than the inconsequential quibble about framing people for
>crimes they haven't committed? I don't think so. For one thing, if a
>person who didn't commit the crime is prosecuted and maybe found guilty,
>then this tends to leave a guilty person free and clear to commit other
>crimes. This is a problem.
>
>But then, by your logic, the guilty party is probably innocent of
>SOMETHING, so even though he probably was guilty of this particular crime,
>he deserves to be cleared because of this inherent innocence? Is that how
>you justify it? It seems entirely consistent with your logic that someone
>who didn't commit the crime deserves to be punished for it on account of
>being guilty of something else. Which is to say it is a pathetic and
>immoral justification of systematic injustice.BB
I am tempted to ignore what you keep writing because you keep coming back to this. Where did I write that I believe this is happening? What logical gymnastics are you performing to come to the conclusion that I have written anything to support this conclusion? It didn't happen Bill, because I don't support this idea nor do I believe this is happening in any significant numbers in the US. I'd be willing to be proven wrong. Please forward any data you have that suggests that what you are claiming is actually happening in any significant numbers. JT
>No, you don't have to take your cues from lawyers. Ignorance of the law is
>no excuse and justice isn't rocket science. Anyone can grasp the basic
>principles. Yes, selective enforcement is always a problem, but
>prosecutors having discretion about which cases to prosecute isn't the
>basic problem. The real problem comes when this is the only safety net in
>the system, such as for instance under mandatory sentencing regimes where
>the decision to prosecute or not ultimately determines the penalty. BB
If I have questions about medicine I ask a doctor. If I have questions about load bearing structures I ask an engineer. If I have questions about how the legal system works I'll ask a lawyer, or judge. If you don't want to do that that's fine but it seems a sound way to approach the question. JT
>Given that I have somewhat limited opportunities to talk to masses of
>Americans, I'll start with the people here. Especially those who ought to
>know better than to argue that the American legals system is legitimate.
>Or who dare to argue that it is fine to punish people for crimes they
>didn't commit, because they are probably guilty of something else that
>they haven't been caught for. I really don't know how to deal with people
>so ignorant as to believe that this is the best of all existing, let alone
>possible, legal doctrines, except to abuse them.
>
>Bill Bartlett
The legal system is the US is as legitimate as any other. It is not problem free as is no other. I would like to see changes made. You keep coming back to charging people for crimes that they didn't commit. Where is your proof that this happens on a per conviction basis more in the US than elsewhere? It isn't that I think it is impossible, I believe it may be possible but it may not be either, I won't believe on way or the other without some evidence to support either claim.
John Thornton