Is our justice system a hypocrisy?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Yep, cops do have to be held to a higher standard as that is what they are being paid for..............to uphold the law and set an example, once they've broken the trust, they are ineffective at their job.
Can't speak for Canada but it's definitely the American way. Remember that infamous case where 4 black guys were accused and convicted of raping a stupid white woman who took up jogging at midnight in NYC's Central Park. All were innocent but the cops beat the **** out of them and forced them to confess to a crime they did not commit. Racist Rush Limbaugh said it was proof that black men are all out to rape white women and spent a week in his show talking that ****. When they were proven innocent when the real culprit confessed, Limbaugh never apologized. Nor were the crooked cops thrown in jail for their crimes against those innocent black men. As always, a black man is guilty until proven innocent. Where are the '' moral conservatives'' to demand that those cops spend the rest of their lives in jail????
gopher, you forgot about a black woman accusing three white Duke University students of rape?
The students were completely and totally exonerated, but none of the press apologized for calling them rapists. BTW, the woman is now charged with murder.
The students were completely and totally exonerated, but none of the press apologized for calling them rapists. BTW, the woman is now charged with murder.
This is a good answer to a good question:
"No, you are not guilty because you are in jail, you are the ACCUSED. That's enough to want to keep you locked up, but not enough to keep you for long. The basic law is innocent until proven guilty for the simple reason that the alternative would be much, much less fair.
Consider if you were assumed guilty until you could prove your innocence. Perry Mason always proved his client was innocent by proving someone else committed the crime. How often do you think that happens? And should it be necessary to be the one to correct the police's errors and find the guilty party? How would you go about it when there you are in jail, and everyone is entitled to assume you are guilty?
Also, the guilty assumption would put way, way too much power in the hands of the police. This way, they turn you over to the district attorney with what amounts to "We think this is the guy. You prove it or he will walk." This creates a division of responsibility between the police and the DA, which helps avoid some (but clearly not all) corruption. Then it puts your defense attorney on a theoretically even footing with the DA.
The whole idea is that it is better that the guilty go free once in awhile when the system fails to work properly than have the innocent locked up. On the whole, I like our system better than any conceivable alternative."
auntb93again: http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=AA10235908
Central Park in those days had no lighting. It takes someone of great ''genius'' to go jogging at that time of night. Yes, she suffered. But so did those innocent black guys who spent 10 years in jail for a crime they did not commit. The mother of one of them died of grief and the cops should have gone to prison for that.
I well remember that case. I also remember the Charles Stuart case in Boston where a white guy accuse a black of murder - the cops beat up an innocent black guy so badly that he confessed to that crime though he was innocent. I can also give you a bunch of references from the Innocence Project where 100s of innocent black men were falsely accused and convicted for crimes they did not commit.
Ah Gopher... Willie Bennett never confessed to the crime nor was he beaten.
But why let facts get in the way of a good story huh.
FAIL
The case took place 21 years ago and my memory is a little fuzzy. It was actually Derrick Jackson who was coerced into saying he did it:
Search for Pregnant Woman's Murderer Called a 'Witch Hunt' - Los Angeles Times
''Newspaper and television reports Saturday quoted Dereck Jackson, 17, whose affidavit was the foundation of the case against Bennett, as saying police coerced him into telling them that he heard Bennett confess to the shootings of Charles and Carol Stuart.''
Police were never charged with any crime for that coercion.
Search for Pregnant Woman's Murderer Called a 'Witch Hunt' - Los Angeles Times
''Newspaper and television reports Saturday quoted Dereck Jackson, 17, whose affidavit was the foundation of the case against Bennett, as saying police coerced him into telling them that he heard Bennett confess to the shootings of Charles and Carol Stuart.''
Police were never charged with any crime for that coercion.
Suspects are held in custody when overwhelming probable icause is shown, and the crime is very serious.
If one could be arrested and held on an accusation alone, it would result in anyone who has a grudge against another person having them locked up. There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate guilt on the part of the accused. But they still have to be proven guilty before they can be convicted.
That sounds fair enough to me.
Anyone accused of murder or some other serious crime should be held until the trial or make bail if it is offered.. There is really no innocent till proven guilty until the trial. I wouldn't want it any other way either.