From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 12:33:55 MDT
On Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:24 PM Harvey Newstrom
mail@HarveyNewstrom.com wrote:
> I am greatly disturbed by the two trails just completed
> this week in Florida for the same crime. The prosecutor
> says that they weren't sure who did it, so they charged
> both the adult suspect and the two boys in separate
> trials. They then proceeded to present different theories
> in the two trials. They let the juries decide whether each
> case was valid or not. Luckily, they got a consistent set
> of verdicts with one innocent and one guilty. Note that it
> was the same person prosecuting both cases
> simultaneously, arguing different theories of guilt in each
> case.
I felt the same way hearing about the case. It sounded almost like
double jeopardy: if at first you don't convict, try try again. It's
funny too, since it was two separate juries. Hopefully, both juries
made the right decision...
On the other hand, someone might argue that two theories like this
should be allowed to compete. After all, one theory might be right, but
the prosecutor is not so much interested in justice as in winning. (How
to get interests to allign here is an interesting problem. Any takers?)
> This is a question that has come up here recently in response to
> terrorism. If we aren't sure who is guilty, do we err on the side of
> letting some guilty people go free, or do we err on the side of
> convicting innocent people to life imprisonment or death?
I would err on the side of freeing the guilty simply because the other
course gives too much power to prosecutors (and the government). It's
not that terrorists aren't a threat, but that government is a much
larger and longlasting threat. Long after Al Qaeda is forgotten, the
DoJ will still have its expanded powers and those who are not in favor
or not in a position to defend themselves.
Add to this, jailing people is the use of force. As such, it must be
used cautiously. The point behind a trial in this libertarian sense is
to prove that the punishment is not the initiation of force, but truly a
punishment. Accusing anyone is easy. Proving a negative (innocence) is
hard if not impossible in many cases. That's a good enough reason to
stick with the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim.
Cheers!
Dan
See "Form and Content in Poetry: A Reply to Jackie van Oostrom" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Poetry.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:49 MST