🚀 go-pugleaf

fdp@netcom.com (Ciccio) wrote:



> >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.

Very true as well. 

> >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. 

Does this statistic apply only to cases where the defendant pleads
not guilty and there is a bonafide jury trial or does it also include
plea bargains to lesser charges?

Even in actual trials a conviction does not imply that there was
evidence beyone a reasonable doubt only that the prosecution convinced
the jury that there was and the less-than-million-dollar defense
failed to instill reasonable doubt.  The difference is how innocent
people get convicted.

> Further, the US imprisons more people per captia than any
> other country in the world...in fact, even more than the former USSR.

Yes, but the marjority of these people never had a jury trial but
instead pleaded guilty to a lesser offense to get a reduced sentence. 
Often in these cases there is not enough evidence for a conviction.

> >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.

True enough, but I think we would have no argument about murder.
 
> Ciao!
> Ciccio