Butters 0 #1 December 14, 2006 What percent of innocent people are you willing to find guilty so that guilty people are not found innocent? Example: Choosing 0.50 means you are willing to find 50 innocent people guilty so that 10,000 guilty people are not found innocent."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #2 December 14, 2006 >Choosing 0.50% . . . Isn't that the same as 50%? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #3 December 14, 2006 Quote>Choosing 0.50% . . . Isn't that the same as 50%? Thanks, the error is corrected."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #4 December 14, 2006 It is better for a thousand guilty people to walk than a single innocent person be unjustly imprisoned. Wrongful imprisonment is a much darker mark on society than are erroneous acquittals.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,433 #5 December 14, 2006 Sorry, was actually just trying to be funny (the Verizon ".02 cents = .02 dollars" thing.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #6 December 14, 2006 QuoteIt is better for a thousand guilty people to walk than a single innocent person be unjustly imprisoned. Wrongful imprisonment is a much darker mark on society than are erroneous acquittals. so mark jcd down for 1001 as being his acceptable cutoff point. guy - your are pretty harsh, I hope we can do better than that for at least the really harsh crimes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #7 December 14, 2006 QuoteIt is better for a thousand guilty people to walk than a single innocent person be unjustly imprisoned. The only way to accomplish that goal would be to require irrefutable proof of a person's guilt. That eliminates the need for a jury. Our system is designed around the idea that your peers (that's another debate) listen to the evidence against you and make a decision under the instruction that they declare you innocent if there is a "reasonable doubt" of your guilt. "Reasonable doubt" means that some innocent people WILL be wrongly imprisoned. THe alternative is that MOST guilty people will walk free to prevent innocent people from going to jail. There no way that would work out.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #8 December 14, 2006 You've got the wrong idea about the criminal justice system in the USA. The bedrock principle is that it is better to let the guilty go free than to lock up the innocent. "The land of the free," and all that good stuff. The system is not set up to make calculations about how many innocents we would want to imprison in order to assure that no guilty people go free. In fact, it's the opposite. The system is set up so that a few guilty people may go free in order to assure that no (or at least, very few) innocent people go to prison. At least, that's the theory, anyway... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #9 December 14, 2006 Put yourself in the shoes of a prisoner wrongfully convicted.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #10 December 14, 2006 QuotePut yourself in the shoes of a prisoner wrongfully convicted. Every time I've had jury duty, that's exactly what I've done. It made me strive to do the best job I could. That's the way our legal system is designed to work. How do you suggest we change the system to make your goal a reality? Change the burden of proof to "beyond any doubt" instead of "reasonable doubt? Put yourself in the shoes of the countless increased crime victims that would create. What's your suggestion to change the system? I know very well that there's a chance I could be wrongly convicted of a crime under our system. I continue to accept that system because I'm willing to take that hit to prevent 1000s of criminals from going free. That's called accountability. It's part of the package deal along with being free to pursue happiness Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 December 14, 2006 QuotePut yourself in the shoes of a prisoner wrongfully convicted. I can empathized with that. Are you strong enough to put yourself in the shoes of all the rest of society and make the harder decision? The ONLY way to ensure zero innocent people are put in jail is to let everybody go free. in other words, 1 in 10 billion is the answer? Your original post is an emotional response, but it doesn't answer the question. You took the easy way out. edit: stuck on double negatives for abit ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #12 December 14, 2006 Quote What percent of innocent verse guilty people are you willing to find guilty so that guilty people are not found innocent? Example: Choosing 0.50 means you are willing to find 50 innocent people guilty so that 10,000 guilty people are not found innocent. What is the punishment?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #13 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuotePut yourself in the shoes of a prisoner wrongfully convicted. I can empathized with that. Are you strong enough to put yourself in the shoes of all the rest of society and make the harder decision? The ONLY way to ensure zero innocent people are put in jail is to let everybody go free. in other words, 1 in 10 billion is the answer? Your original post is an emotional response, but it doesn't answer the question. You took the easy way out. edit: stuck on double negatives for abit I don't believe my original response was emotional at all. Our system is designed to put the rights of the individual first. So logically, it is much better to let a guilty person walk than imprison and innocent person if our system is implemented as designed. In fact, I believe the emotionally based answers are the ones based in the fear that a guilty person might make their way back onto the streets. I think the easy way out (as long as I'm not the accused) would be to assume that if the accused was arrested, they're probably guilty, so we should lock them up. The hard choice is to do the right thing, even if that means someone guilty of murder, rape, etc. will be set free due to lack of enough evidence.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #14 December 14, 2006 QuoteOur system is designed to put the rights of the individual first. I would argue that our legal system is designed to provide the maximum protection of society while still preserving individual rights where it can. Hence the "reasonable doubt" clause. You really contradict yourself in this post. Bottom line is that you think you should be assumed innocent without absolute proof and everyone else should hang?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 December 14, 2006 Quotesomeone guilty of murder, rape, etc. will be set free due to lack of enough evidence. we are not one of those societies that do have a guilty until proven innocent philosophy - so our risk tolerance is much tighter already....... Your example of 'lack of evidence' isn't the issue here, the issue pertains where there is enough evidence and it still might put the wrong person behind bars the above question applies - do you want to replace "beyond all reasonable doubt" with "beyond all imagined and hypothetical doubt"? lots of people voting 0 - I wonder what imaginary land they live in. there is no such thing as an absolute process yet people keep demanding it from governments (run by people) to help them account for their inabilities to be perfect as individuals (also people)... odd we are becoming a society where people expect extremely high standards from others, especially if they are anonymous/faceless yet expect their shortcomings to be forgiven ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #16 December 14, 2006 QuoteBottom line is that you think you should be assumed innocent without absolute proof and everyone else should hang? Where did you get that idea? I DEFINITELY need to edit that post if that is a realistic interpretation of what I wrote. To clarify, I believe every accused person should be judged with a very high burden of proof (of guilt).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #17 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteOur system is designed to put the rights of the individual first. I would argue that our legal system is designed to provide the maximum protection of society while still preserving individual rights where it can. Hence the "reasonable doubt" clause. Your argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #18 December 14, 2006 QuoteYou really contradict yourself in this post. Bottom line is that you think you should be assumed innocent without absolute proof and everyone else should hang? What post did you read?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #19 December 14, 2006 QuoteI think the easy way out (as long as I'm not the accused) would be to assume that if the accused was arrested, they're probably guilty, so we should lock them up. Okay, I think I may have read this the wrong way. Starting over. We don't jail everyone who's arrested. We give them what we call "due process." In that process, we trade off the possibility of convicting an innocent person with the idea that if we require absolute proof of guilt, we will suffer dire consequences. What do you think a "very high burden of proff" is? Is it absolute?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #20 December 14, 2006 Quotedo you want to replace "beyond all reasonable doubt" with "beyond all imagined and hypothetical doubt"? No. But that would be preferable to equating "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "the most likely suspect." The goal is a just society, not a 1:1 crime to conviction ratio. Wrongful imprisonment has no place in a just society.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #21 December 14, 2006 Quoteequating "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "the most likely suspect." now that's a different discussion you are now talking about 'knowingly' imprisoning the wrong person rather than the existing evidence accidentally doing it that would be a local issue and very specific, not part of our culture - our at least the communities I've lived in ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #22 December 14, 2006 QuoteYour argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with. Okay, take it apart a little at a time and help me understand. 1. Do we not require that convictions require that someone be considered quilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not absolute proof, just reasonable doubt. I find it hard to accept that the framers of the Constitution didn't understand that "reasonable doubt" meant that there was potential to convict an innocent person. If you disgaree then we have a difference of opinion. 2. If the Constitution allows for reasonable doubt then how is that placing individual rights over those of society? The idea that individual rights are preserved ahead of anything else exists only within the idea that the individual is acting within legal boundries in the pursuit of those rights. Once the individual is suspected of crossing those legal boundries, they are held to account for their actions to the rest of society with society at a burden to prove them guilty. In the mean time, they may lose their rights. Ask any person who's spent time in jail awaiting a trial in which they were eventually found innocent to tell you whose rights were put ahead of their individual rights?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #23 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteYour argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with. QuoteOkay, take it apart a little at a time and help me understand. 1. Do we not require that convictions require that someone be considered quilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not absolute proof, just reasonable doubt. I find it hard to accept that the framers of the Constitution didn't understand that "reasonable doubt" meant that there was potential to convict an innocent person. If you disgaree then we have a difference of opinion. 2. If the Constitution allows for reasonable doubt then how is that placing individual rights over those of society? The idea that individual rights are preserved ahead of anything else exists only within the idea that the individual is acting within legal boundries in the pursuit of those rights. Once the individual is suspected of crossing those legal boundries, they are held to account for their actions to the rest of society with society at a burden to prove them guilty. In the mean time, they may lose their rights. Ask any person who's spent time in jail awaiting a trial in which they were eventually found innocent to tell you whose rights were put ahead of their individual rights? I'm relatively new to posting here, so don't get annoyed if I goof up quoting your post. Feel free to get as annoyed as you want with my reply, though. Of course there is always a possibility of convicting the innocent with our system. But what you are proposing is a wholesale shifting of the basic principles of our criminal law. You are arguing, if I understand you correctly, that the rights of society to be safe from criminals ought to trump the rights of individuals accused of crimes. This is a reasonabble argument, but I repeat, this is not the way our system is currently set up. Maybe it should be set up that way, but that's a different argument. Everyone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating. The notion of reasonable doubt was intended to preserve the rights of the criminally accused. It is a much higher standard than the one used in civil cases - preponderance of the evidence. As I understand it, this is a very high burden of proof. Not 100% certainty, but definitely much more than, "well, it sort of seems like he might have done it, so let's throw him in prison." Hope this helps clarify my position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #24 December 14, 2006 QuoteEveryone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just giving my opinion. I've made it clear that I agree with the current system and have no desire to change it. The overall intention of the Constitution is to defend and preserve individual rights. I don't argue that point at all. The overall intention of our legal system isn't quite the same. I don't understand how you can claim that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve individual rights when the legal system in question has the right to revoke individual rights pending it's ability to prove guilt. If reserving the right to revoke the freedom of an individual until they have been determined innocent isn't placing the needs and rights of society as a whole over the rights of the individual then what is it?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #25 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteEveryone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just giving my opinion. I've made it clear that I agree with the current system and have no desire to change it. QuoteThe overall intention of the Constitution is to defend and preserve individual rights. I don't argue that point at all. The overall intention of our legal system isn't quite the same. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. In other words, it is the most important law that we have. It is the foundation of our legal system. If the overall intention of the Constitution is to defend individual rights, as you admit, then the overall intention of our legal system must be to defend individual rights. Quote I don't understand how you can claim that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve individual rights when the legal system in question has the right to revoke individual rights pending it's ability to prove guilt. If reserving the right to revoke the freedom of an individual until they have been determined innocent isn't placing the needs and rights of society as a whole over the rights of the individual then what is it? Tougher question to deal with, I admit. I'll concede that the right to freedom in this case is balanced against society's needs. But all the other rights a criminal defendant gets, right to counsel, to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against him, etc., are not diminished. That's what I mean when I say that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve rights. Feel free to have the last word on this. Nice debating with you! Andy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jakee 1,259 #18 December 14, 2006 QuoteYou really contradict yourself in this post. Bottom line is that you think you should be assumed innocent without absolute proof and everyone else should hang? What post did you read?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #19 December 14, 2006 QuoteI think the easy way out (as long as I'm not the accused) would be to assume that if the accused was arrested, they're probably guilty, so we should lock them up. Okay, I think I may have read this the wrong way. Starting over. We don't jail everyone who's arrested. We give them what we call "due process." In that process, we trade off the possibility of convicting an innocent person with the idea that if we require absolute proof of guilt, we will suffer dire consequences. What do you think a "very high burden of proff" is? Is it absolute?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #20 December 14, 2006 Quotedo you want to replace "beyond all reasonable doubt" with "beyond all imagined and hypothetical doubt"? No. But that would be preferable to equating "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "the most likely suspect." The goal is a just society, not a 1:1 crime to conviction ratio. Wrongful imprisonment has no place in a just society.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #21 December 14, 2006 Quoteequating "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "the most likely suspect." now that's a different discussion you are now talking about 'knowingly' imprisoning the wrong person rather than the existing evidence accidentally doing it that would be a local issue and very specific, not part of our culture - our at least the communities I've lived in ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #22 December 14, 2006 QuoteYour argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with. Okay, take it apart a little at a time and help me understand. 1. Do we not require that convictions require that someone be considered quilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not absolute proof, just reasonable doubt. I find it hard to accept that the framers of the Constitution didn't understand that "reasonable doubt" meant that there was potential to convict an innocent person. If you disgaree then we have a difference of opinion. 2. If the Constitution allows for reasonable doubt then how is that placing individual rights over those of society? The idea that individual rights are preserved ahead of anything else exists only within the idea that the individual is acting within legal boundries in the pursuit of those rights. Once the individual is suspected of crossing those legal boundries, they are held to account for their actions to the rest of society with society at a burden to prove them guilty. In the mean time, they may lose their rights. Ask any person who's spent time in jail awaiting a trial in which they were eventually found innocent to tell you whose rights were put ahead of their individual rights?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #23 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteYour argument is wrong. Previous posters who assert that the system is designed to protect the rights of individuals are correct. Perhaps you could construct a reasonable argument that our criminal justice system should be designed to protect the maximum amount of individuals, but this is clearly not the way the system is set up now. What you are advocating would entail a wholesale rewriting of parts of the U.S. and State Constitutions, as well as federal and state Rules of Evidence. If you'd like to get started on that project, go ahead. I'd be happy to see what you come up with. QuoteOkay, take it apart a little at a time and help me understand. 1. Do we not require that convictions require that someone be considered quilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not absolute proof, just reasonable doubt. I find it hard to accept that the framers of the Constitution didn't understand that "reasonable doubt" meant that there was potential to convict an innocent person. If you disgaree then we have a difference of opinion. 2. If the Constitution allows for reasonable doubt then how is that placing individual rights over those of society? The idea that individual rights are preserved ahead of anything else exists only within the idea that the individual is acting within legal boundries in the pursuit of those rights. Once the individual is suspected of crossing those legal boundries, they are held to account for their actions to the rest of society with society at a burden to prove them guilty. In the mean time, they may lose their rights. Ask any person who's spent time in jail awaiting a trial in which they were eventually found innocent to tell you whose rights were put ahead of their individual rights? I'm relatively new to posting here, so don't get annoyed if I goof up quoting your post. Feel free to get as annoyed as you want with my reply, though. Of course there is always a possibility of convicting the innocent with our system. But what you are proposing is a wholesale shifting of the basic principles of our criminal law. You are arguing, if I understand you correctly, that the rights of society to be safe from criminals ought to trump the rights of individuals accused of crimes. This is a reasonabble argument, but I repeat, this is not the way our system is currently set up. Maybe it should be set up that way, but that's a different argument. Everyone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating. The notion of reasonable doubt was intended to preserve the rights of the criminally accused. It is a much higher standard than the one used in civil cases - preponderance of the evidence. As I understand it, this is a very high burden of proof. Not 100% certainty, but definitely much more than, "well, it sort of seems like he might have done it, so let's throw him in prison." Hope this helps clarify my position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #24 December 14, 2006 QuoteEveryone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just giving my opinion. I've made it clear that I agree with the current system and have no desire to change it. The overall intention of the Constitution is to defend and preserve individual rights. I don't argue that point at all. The overall intention of our legal system isn't quite the same. I don't understand how you can claim that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve individual rights when the legal system in question has the right to revoke individual rights pending it's ability to prove guilt. If reserving the right to revoke the freedom of an individual until they have been determined innocent isn't placing the needs and rights of society as a whole over the rights of the individual then what is it?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #25 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteEveryone in our society has the same rights to due process. Just because someone has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime does not mean that his/her rights go away. Yes, the individual may be held in jail before or during trial, and yes, this is certainly a curtailment of some rights. But all the other rights this individual has, Constitutional or otherwise, still apply to him/her. Like it or not, our criminal justice system is based on the rights of individuals, not the utilitarian sort of calculations (greatest good for the greatest number) that I think you are advocating. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just giving my opinion. I've made it clear that I agree with the current system and have no desire to change it. QuoteThe overall intention of the Constitution is to defend and preserve individual rights. I don't argue that point at all. The overall intention of our legal system isn't quite the same. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. In other words, it is the most important law that we have. It is the foundation of our legal system. If the overall intention of the Constitution is to defend individual rights, as you admit, then the overall intention of our legal system must be to defend individual rights. Quote I don't understand how you can claim that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve individual rights when the legal system in question has the right to revoke individual rights pending it's ability to prove guilt. If reserving the right to revoke the freedom of an individual until they have been determined innocent isn't placing the needs and rights of society as a whole over the rights of the individual then what is it? Tougher question to deal with, I admit. I'll concede that the right to freedom in this case is balanced against society's needs. But all the other rights a criminal defendant gets, right to counsel, to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses against him, etc., are not diminished. That's what I mean when I say that the primary goal of the legal system is to preserve rights. Feel free to have the last word on this. Nice debating with you! Andy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
