Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
Yes, because our system isn’t designed for justice. The police doesn’t try to find the truth, they just try to find someone to charge. The defender doesn’t try to find the truth, but to escape conviction for his client, likewise with the prosecutor. The judge is there to follow the letter of the law as well as possible, there is nobody that cares about justice.
The very idea that you need a prosecutor and a defender makes no sense if you think about it. At sociey that wanted justice would just have a bunch of independant experts colaborate to find the truth and sentence based on that.
The idea that the process of justice must be carried out like a competition in which both sides are trying to trip each other up and trying to win at any cost through manipulation and omission with no regards to truth or justice means that the system has no interest in either.
Edgy. There are standard arguments for why an adversarial legal system tends to achieve good outcomes. I’m not really interested in digging up standard arguments though so I guess we’ll leave it here.
Sure, there are many arguments for many bad ideas, but the statistics don’t lie. A hostile police force, an adversarial legal system, only leads to miscarriages of justice.
It’s just an extension of capitalism; if you can get away with it your actions are legitimized regardless of what you did. It’s the paradigm of the End justifying the means.
So pur system is designed for miscarriage of justice and so as such cannot be said to result in miscarriages of justice because we do not care about justice in the first place.
No. What I expect is that if someone is coming at something from a wildly different perspective than the status quo - for example, “judges shouldn’t be allowed to prevent juries from hearing anything from a defendant,” then they be able to present literally any argument for that. I’ve had dozens of replies in this thread that either could not do that or could not articulate why that was not their perspective.
Instead, they want to take it as read that the status quo is wrong. The status quo could very well be wrong but everyone who has come to that conclusion through actual reason rather than unexamined emotion can say why. Of the dozens of replies I think only one person demonstrated that ability.
Yes, because our system isn’t designed for justice. The police doesn’t try to find the truth, they just try to find someone to charge. The defender doesn’t try to find the truth, but to escape conviction for his client, likewise with the prosecutor. The judge is there to follow the letter of the law as well as possible, there is nobody that cares about justice.
The very idea that you need a prosecutor and a defender makes no sense if you think about it. At sociey that wanted justice would just have a bunch of independant experts colaborate to find the truth and sentence based on that.
The idea that the process of justice must be carried out like a competition in which both sides are trying to trip each other up and trying to win at any cost through manipulation and omission with no regards to truth or justice means that the system has no interest in either.
Edgy. There are standard arguments for why an adversarial legal system tends to achieve good outcomes. I’m not really interested in digging up standard arguments though so I guess we’ll leave it here.
Sure, there are many arguments for many bad ideas, but the statistics don’t lie. A hostile police force, an adversarial legal system, only leads to miscarriages of justice.
It’s just an extension of capitalism; if you can get away with it your actions are legitimized regardless of what you did. It’s the paradigm of the End justifying the means.
So pur system is designed for miscarriage of justice and so as such cannot be said to result in miscarriages of justice because we do not care about justice in the first place.
You are not arguing in a way that will convince me. Please leave me alone if that’s the only way you know how.
It’s literally an online discussion forum. Why are you here then?
To hear from people who write convincingly
Ah yes, to hear your own opinion through someone else’s mouth. Echochamber ventriloquism.
No. What I expect is that if someone is coming at something from a wildly different perspective than the status quo - for example, “judges shouldn’t be allowed to prevent juries from hearing anything from a defendant,” then they be able to present literally any argument for that. I’ve had dozens of replies in this thread that either could not do that or could not articulate why that was not their perspective.
Instead, they want to take it as read that the status quo is wrong. The status quo could very well be wrong but everyone who has come to that conclusion through actual reason rather than unexamined emotion can say why. Of the dozens of replies I think only one person demonstrated that ability.
Don’t confuse your capacity to understand with other people’s capacity to explain.