![Cop Hit-and-Run [1242x1660 - 289KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/VBNkBG.png){kind=link}
Even when the evidence is this clear?
Here's the problem, juries are only ever supposed to convict no matter what the crime or sentence when the evidence is "this clear," but that's not what happens in practice. They convict because papers said the guy is guilty, or some woman told a sob story or muh racism or some other shitty excuse for evidence.
If we create another tier of "super dooper guilty with cherries on top so it's ok to kill them" we're admitting that juries routinely convict people they're not sure are guilty at all. And they do.
Look ... I'm perfectly fine with letting 10 guilty go free so an innocent man can walk.... but there's innocent ... and then there's not-guilty by reason of jewish technicality ... which is still guilty.
Sure, and the same juries that let those guilty men walk will put innocent men in prison.
Simple example: A guy in my city got put away for 20 years for molesting his neighbour's kid. 20 years later she comes forward and admits she made the entire thing up because she was having crippling mental health problems from the guilt of knowing he was locked up and she could set him free at any time. Turns out she did it because the families were feuding.
There was no evidence he did it (other than her story) but he was put away anyhow. If we was dead we probably never would have heard the truth. Something like that happening should result in an enquiry and changes to the rules of evidence to ensure it never happens again. It should be considered impossible, but instead we're constantly looking for new ways to make it easier to convict with less and less evidence.
You are blaming the wrong people.
(post is archived)