Um... 38 agree, 10 disagree... the fact that you don't even understand how clearly most people here disagree with you is actually what speaks volumes.





You're confusing the issue again by comparing peoples' sacrifices that they make as soldiers or law enforcement with innocent people wrongfully convicted and punished by the government.

Soldiers make a sacrifice, sometimes unwilling, as conscripts, to protect their country. They get paid for it, and they get treated with respect or at least cared for after serving their country. Sure it may not have always been so, but that's the standard now.

Convicting someone who is innocent is not an act to protect society, it is, in most cases an act of a vindictive society and it is very much NOT the same thing as a soldier dying on the battlefield - regardless of how just or unjust the war is.

The problem with your thinking is that you feel that by having the ability to convict people without taking great pains to attempt to ensure no innocents get wrongfully convicted, we are actually serving society. We're not. Your thinking is vindictive and punitive and ultimately self-defeating.

Think about this remark:




This is where your thinking leads.

 

-----signature-----

not talking about the poll LOL


My advice is lighten up, get off your self righteous pedestal, don't confuse your opinion with fact, and don't go to a barber who only cuts your hair in the middle.

Yeah, I'd back away from this argument too if I were you.

 

-----signature-----

OK I'll state the obvious.

The legal and law enforcement systems aren't well geared to catch people who commit 1 crime alone. "1 and done" is not the profile of most criminals, anyway.

People make a bad move or two, get caught eventually, get into the system, get some monitoring or rep, and their M.O. captured. We get their fingerprints and other relevant facts. THEN when they do something down the road there's a better chance of catching them.

It's just how it works.

In such a world, pushing for "a head" on a specific crime is usually a bad idea. It becomes a witch hunt and, often, a self-fulfilling prophecy that can get a reasonable (but innocent) suspect railroaded.

The system is SUPPOSED to err in favor of letting people get by. It counts on catching repeat offenders down the road as a matter of probability.

 

-----signature-----

more spin lol

Politics are what drives the bold stuff here. DAs want to appear tough on crime. Nothing stirs the public like crimes against children. Convicting people for crimes against children is even more politically beneficial than being "tough on drugs" lol. It is part of the problem inherent in our system.

It is SUCH a large problem that people use the premise of crimes against children and the mandatory investigation and likely prosecution of any allegation of such as a weapon against others. For those who don't think this happens, you should talk to some family law attorneys sometimes and see just how frequent it is...

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

The problem is some of you are basing your thinking on wishful thinking rather than reality.

 

-----signature-----

Generally when you wrongfully convict the innocent, that implies that someone guilty already *has* gone free.

 

-----signature-----

Good point!

 

-----signature-----