>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
My argument isn't that innocent people are necessarily prosecuted more often in the US, but that because an accused person is less likely to get a trial, it is more likely that an innocent person will be unjustly convicted.
>>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?
What did you mean by this then: "However most people commit multiple offenses before they are ever prosecuted for even one offense." What was the relevance?
> 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
Do you have any evidence for this assertion that most people are guilty of not only the crime they are charged with, but many other crimes as well? It seems unlikely that there would be such evidence, so the statement is merely prejudicial. Otherwise irrelevant.
>>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?
I quoted the relevant passage from your post. You said that: "The chances of an innocent person being charged is pretty remote," and went on: "However most people commit multiple offenses before they are ever prosecuted for even one offense."
> 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.
That is a great relief, I apologise. I don't really understand what you were getting at then, but never mind.
> 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
Give me a break. I have forwarded a reference showing that innocent people are being convicted because of the plea bargaining system:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/etc/script.html
I have forwarded a reference that proves the system responsible for these miscarriages of justice is a breach of international human rights standards and the treaty obligations of the US (article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.)
Now you want statistics as well!
Well just as criminals don't publish statistics on their crimes, it is difficult to locate official statistics on the number of people unjustly convicted. We can only infer that, if it can happen, it will happen. That's known as Murphy's Law.
How about you show me statistics that prove it isn't happening.
>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?
No, that isn't the point. I'm not claiming innocent people are charged more often. I'm simply pointing out that in an environment where accused people are, systematically, coerced to give up their right to a fair trial and intimidated into giving evidence against themselves, that conviction of innocent people is more likely than in jurisdictions where human rights are respected.
> 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.
You are the one defending a system which is outside the norms of acceptable international standards, so surely the onus is on you to prove it (unjust outcomes) ISN'T happening more in the US than elsewhere?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas