@raphjd:
Well, like we were told recently, it's a wonderful that that it happened or Timmy might have been pushed down the well rather than simply fallen down it.
Innocent men in prison shows us the justice system is working at it's best. Too bad he wasn't executed. If he had been, millions of crimes he had nothing to do with would have been prevented.
You reminded me of something I forgot to post weeks ago.
A member was suggesting that it is acceptable to convict someone who is innocent because that will put 10 guilty people who would have gotten off in prison.
On the surface, that theory has some validity.. but not really. In the case of rape, 994 out of 1000 rapists go free or are never caught.
Just to make this easier to explain, lets make that 990 out of 1000 rapists go free.
By the flawed logic presented that it's OK to convict an innocent person to put 10 real rapists in prison..
that would mean that out of 1000 rapes, 10 people went to prison, one innocent person got convicted, and 990 guilty people go free.
By the logic of #1 and #2 with their esteemed reputations, it is better to NOT convict that innocent person at the cost of letting 10 guilty people go free.
By that logic,
that would mean that out of 1000 rapes, 0 people went to prison, no innocent people were convicted, and 1000 people go free.
SO… to simplify this...
Is it better to convict 1% of rapists at a cost of putting an innocent person in prison..
Or is it better to convict 0% of rapists and guarantee that no innocent people are put in prison?
Let me add that of course the conviction rate would never be just 0% because there are many cases where there is substantial DIRECT evidence to convict a rapist. What I am saying is that if there is a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that person should NOT be convicted!
In the case I refer to often, the man was convicted with NO direct evidence.. in fact, there was a ton of direct evidence which all contradicted with the man being guilty.. but it was all ignored because he was tricked / brainwashed into pursuing an insanity plea - 20 months after the murder. By doing that, it meant he was not denying committing the crime. The closest the man came to making a confession was this: (I am paraphrasing here.. this is not his direct quotes) "I don't remember doing the things I am accused of doing, and what I am telling you is what my defense attorney told me to say happened". Some confession!
I must add a bit more explanation about this. The time of the murder is known. The accused man is seen on video 5.5 hours later. When we see him, he looks like a zombie.. 100% expressionless, and behaving like a robot. He has obviously been drugged. In fact, he told the psychiatrists that he heard voices in the room, possibly talking to someone on the phone, but doesn't know who they were. ***
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
