🚀 go-pugleaf

Aqua <reif_andrea@tandem.com> writes:

>I don't have to let a jury tell me who I will and will not respect.

True, no doubt.

>As an individual I have the right to refuse him service 

Perhaps.

>or refuse to greet him 

Maybe.

>or refuse to give him a job.  

It depends.

>That's American, it's a free country.

Go start a business and then think about that statement.

>Not that I will ever be in a position to do any of these things.  

Well then, it doesn't matter.

>Of course noone has the right to do damage to his property or person or to
>invade his privacy.  

Generally correct.

>Someone being found not guilty by a jury only means that there was a 
>reasonable doubt 

It means that, but not *only* that.

>not that anyone should want to associate
>with the defendant.

I agree.  There are I people I know who have never even been charged with
a crime and with whom I have no desire to have as associates.

>I agree that the system could use some reform.  

No doubt.

>But a perfect system is impossible because the evidence is never complete.  

The better reason may be the system is made of people and people aren't 
perfect.

>It is often impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is 
>guilty.  

Sorry, I have to say this one is far from true.  The prosecution wins over
90% of the time. Further, the US imprisons more people per captia than any
other country in the world...in fact, even more than the former USSR.

>But if you allow a laxer standard innocent people will be convicted.  

No need for a laxer standard to obtain convictions.

>I can't readily see a solution except perhaps in some utopian society where
>the desire to do wrong is virtually eliminated.

That presumes that everybody would agree as to what *wrong* is.

Ciao!
Ciccio