You asked for cases of women being treated unfairly by the legal system. That was the entire basis of the post, so of course which happens more often is relevant. I digress. Who said it was possible for someone to be sent to jail without proof, or that it should be possible? The problem is people who don’t go to jail even when there is proof. Nobody’s going to jail without proof, short of corruption in the legal system, but that’s a whole other topic and no standard of proof is going to help in a situation like that.
Since you brought up murder…one study found 52 rape convictions that were later overturned in the last 25 years. For comparison’s sake, the same study found 790 murder convictions overturned in the same time period. If you’re concerned about people going to jail for crimes they didn’t commit, false rape accusations isn’t even in the conversation.
If you want a legal system where there are zero wrongful convictions, you might as well say you want rape(and every other crime) to be legal. There is no punishment that would make the risk outweighs the reward for criminals in a system like that because the chances of anybody being convicted would be so astronomically low. Even DNA evidence isn’t 100% accurate and foolproof. Hell, even confessions aren’t 100% reliable(see the Unbelievable story I referenced in my last comment), so that wouldn’t be enough to send somebody to jail.
Okay, I can maybe agree to have someone sentenced when there is at least majority of actual proof, if the convict rate would be extremely low otherwise. If someone is found innocent or even that the original court didn't do a good job (despite no new evidence) then they should be set free and compensated. But proof beyond accusation is a minimum in every crime case.
I find it unreasonable how men and women hate each other
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You asked for cases of women being treated unfairly by the legal system. That was the entire basis of the post, so of course which happens more often is relevant. I digress. Who said it was possible for someone to be sent to jail without proof, or that it should be possible? The problem is people who don’t go to jail even when there is proof. Nobody’s going to jail without proof, short of corruption in the legal system, but that’s a whole other topic and no standard of proof is going to help in a situation like that.
Since you brought up murder…one study found 52 rape convictions that were later overturned in the last 25 years. For comparison’s sake, the same study found 790 murder convictions overturned in the same time period. If you’re concerned about people going to jail for crimes they didn’t commit, false rape accusations isn’t even in the conversation.
If you want a legal system where there are zero wrongful convictions, you might as well say you want rape(and every other crime) to be legal. There is no punishment that would make the risk outweighs the reward for criminals in a system like that because the chances of anybody being convicted would be so astronomically low. Even DNA evidence isn’t 100% accurate and foolproof. Hell, even confessions aren’t 100% reliable(see the Unbelievable story I referenced in my last comment), so that wouldn’t be enough to send somebody to jail.
--
Anonymous Post Author
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Okay, I can maybe agree to have someone sentenced when there is at least majority of actual proof, if the convict rate would be extremely low otherwise. If someone is found innocent or even that the original court didn't do a good job (despite no new evidence) then they should be set free and compensated. But proof beyond accusation is a minimum in every crime case.