Re: Carol, what did you used to do for a living?

More | Report Post

On 3/13/06, Bob R/CA wrote:
> On 3/13/06, OMG wrote:
>> Carol,
>>
>> Are you serious about your last stament?
>>
>> *I would rather put a guilty person back on the
>> street than deprive an innocent one of his freedom and possibly life*
>>
>> So the guilty person can go back and commit more crimes against innocent children?
>>
>> No wonder the world is the way it is!
>>
>> Truly amazing
>
> Not amazing at all. Our entire system of jurisprudence reflects her sentiment, which is why it
> takes guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt - and not simply by a preponderance of the
> evidence - to deprive someone of their constitutional right to liberty.

OMG, Bob nailed it. I do understand your sentiment, but you're only looking at one side of it. You
might feel differently about it if you or someone you loved was wrongly convicted and imprisoned. I
seriously doubt you have ever been in prison. There is not only the loss of liberty to deal with,
there is the very real risk to life and limb. Hepatitis (which by the way, can kill you)is
rampant. AIDS is a very real risk, as is just being outright murdered. How do you propose to make
sure that ONLY the guilty go to jail? What we have isn't perfect, it does mean that some guilty go
free. But the alternative is unacceptable. Lock someone up, deprive them of their liberty and life
(not to mention the stigma attached when you finally do get out) because they MAY have committed the
crime? I do understand your desire to protect innocent children from predators, and I agree, but
what about the innocent person who is wrongly accused? Many in the Innocence Project are being
released because of new technology that is proving that they were innocent all along. So even at
its best our system or jurisprudence isn't perfect. But it's still better than the alternative.
And I couldn't do my job if I didn't believe that.