Re: Justice & punishment II
den Otter (otter@globalxs.nl)
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:29:36 +0100
----------
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <warrl@mail.blarg.net> wrote:
>
> > From: "den Otter" <otter@globalxs.nl>
>
> > GBurch1 <GBurch1@aol.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > > I'm sure my opinion should be suspect, as this image doesn't seem to
> > > include a role for lawyers
> >
> > Actually, it _does_ include a role for lawyers ["full legal assistance but only
> > limited appeal possibilities,"] although they would be less powerful than
> > they are now, just like most of the other members of the justice system.
> > If one would be accused of a crime, he could hire as many people to *prove
> > his innocence* as he pleased/could afford. The role of the lawyer would
> > in fact be streamlined: he must present sufficient hard evidence to prove
> > that his client didn't commit the crime(s) he's been accused of. No more,
> > no less.
>
> Guilty until proven innocent? Are you sure that this is the standard
> you want to be ruled under?
Well, don't all (western) justice systems work like that: the prosecution
builds a case with evidence etc, and it's up to the lawyers to prove that
this is crap and that in fact you're innocent. I really see no difference.
The "presumed innocent until proven quilty" thing may sound o.k, but
it's nonsense of course. If the servants of justice really thought you were
innocent they wouldn't have arrested you in the first place, now would
they? They don't call them "suspects" for nothing.