🚀 go-pugleaf

nosferatu@top.monad.net (T. J. Connors, Jr.) wrote:

> To persecute a person who has been found not guilty by a jury of his
> peers, whether you agree with the verdict or not, is irresponsible and 
> un-American.  Every year, hundreds of guilty people are aquited, and
> hundreds of innocent people are convicted.  It seems to me, that the jury
> system needs to be reformed.  We must be cautious, however, not to replace
> our current legal system with a sytem that is much, much worse.
> Teej

I don't have to let a jury tell me who I will and will not respect.
As an individual I have the right to refuse him service or refuse to greet
him or refuse to give him a job.  That's American, it's a free country.
Not that I will ever be in a position to do any of these things.  Of
course noone has the right to do damage to his property or person or to
invade his privacy.  Someone being found not guilty by a jury only means
that there was a reasonable doubt not that anyone should want to associate
with the defendant.

I agree that the system could use some reform.  But a perfect system is
impossible because the evidence is never complete.  It is often impossible
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.  But if you
allow a laxer standard innocent people will be convicted.  I can't
readily see a solution except perhaps in some utopian society where
the desire to do wrong is virtually eliminated.

Aqua