Sfdebris.net

I'd like to give a reminder on the concept of the presumption of innocence.
1. The Presumption of Innocence refers to how we do criminal trials.
2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.
3. Accusing somebody of a crime is not going against the presumption of innocence.
4. Investigating somebody for a possible crime is not violating the presumption of innocence.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:07 pm2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.

And to the punishing of a crime.

If we tie a man to a tree and flog him, I don't think we can justify it by saying "Well, sure, we beat the crap out of him, but we didn't convict him, so we cool."

You'll never get truly impartial justice on this world. There are millions of people out there guilty of crimes they got away with, here and elsewhere. Or those wrongfully convicted of draconian sentences. Again, the woman who got 20 years for a damned warning shot. That's going to follow her everywhere she goes. Twenty years. Two decades. My God. That right there is the international symbol for, "Justice is a myth and there is no such thing as an objective human." Truly impartial justice is a cute idea. Cute. But fictional. The same as our rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

LittleRaven wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:25 pm

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:07 pm2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.

And to the punishing of a crime.

If we tie a man to a tree and flog him, I don't think we can justify it by saying "Well, sure, we beat the crap out of him, but we didn't convict him, so we cool."

Punch a NAZI

I like how some people rationalize away the civil rights of others. I suppose it never occurs to them that the same could happen to them.

Talking 'bout me or someone else?

LittleRaven wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:25 pm

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:07 pm2. The presumption of innocence applies to >>conviction<< of a crime.

And to the punishing of a crime.

If we tie a man to a tree and flog him, I don't think we can justify it by saying "Well, sure, we beat the crap out of him, but we didn't convict him, so we cool."

Right.

And investigation, interviews for a position of power, etc. are all not punishments for crime, but part of the process of determining guilt.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:09 pmAnd investigation, interviews for a position of power, etc. are all not punishments for crime, but part of the process of determining guilt.

Depends. Those in power have a long history of using 'investigations' as defacto punishments. That's a big part of why we have the 6th amendment - monarchs loved to throw people in prison for a few decades while they 'investigated' suspected wrongdoing. And even if you don't actually throw the person in prison, a sufficiently vigorous "investigation" can certainly make a person's life miserable. Just ask any number of people who suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the local police force.

As a general rule, don't make blanket statements about how 'investigations are fine.' Some are. Some aren't. Don't be afraid to get specific.