As with any legal punishment, it’s always necessary to acknowledge that no matter how heinous the crime, some portion of people who are sentenced for that crime, will in fact be innocent.
I’d much much much rather not have a single innocent person be subjected to this, just so I can feel smug that some sick fuck “got what they deserved”. Lock em up where they can’t hurt anyone and call it a day. Cruel and usual punishments help absolutely no one in the end
Realistically, ever justice system is going to have to compromise between between the ease of incarcerating actual criminals and the likelihood of a false conviction, I don’t think it’d be possible to build a system where absolutely 0 innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn’t commit - unless it also was unwilling to convict actual offenders
In general making classification more sensitive will increase your false positive rate, and making it less sensitive will increase your false negative rate. Neither is preferable! The question is whether you consider the cost of a false positive or negative to be higher… I think most would argue that a false negative is far worse if that allows a child/children to be harmed. Consequently, if you are erring on the side of convicting more people, you should also err on the side of “not maiming those people” because the chances are some of them are innocent.
you should also err on the side of “not maiming those people” because the chances are some of them are innocent.
This was more or less my point, though frankly I don’t know that I totally agree that a false negative is “far worse”. Getting a false conviction as a child sexual offender is practically a death sentence in prison, and even if it’s not, it’s certainly enough to ruin that persons life forever. We’re talking about an actual human here. I’m really not sure what it is about children that make people so perfectly OK with throwing away the lives of scores of adults just to keep one child from harm.
Mind you, I’m not advocating that we should let all offenders go free for the sake of keeping any innocents out of prison, but personally I’d rather let several guilty men go free for a crime than see one innocent person have their lives ruined purely due to the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the incompetence of our justice system. Though I recognize that that’s no doubt a controversial opinion. Especially as no one ever believes that they themselves will be falsely convicted of something.
The idea is that one guilty man is capable of harming far more innocent people. You don’t want innocent people harmed because of false accusations, but you’re okay with 'several guilty mentioning free to avoid that, even though those several men will likely end up reoffending and harming more innocent people/children? Obviously there has to be a balance…
We’ve had cases of Prosecutors refusing to convict people of sex crimes if there was evidence it was actually done, due to their own… actions… and we’ve had cases of corrupt judges knowingly giving bullshit guilty verdicts because they were being paid off by private prisons
Obviously there are problems with our justice system so this isn’t realistic. That’s why I said “child molesters” and not “people convicted of child molestation”. By definition child molester means “person who has molested a child”
Do you have a way of determining with 100% accuracy which is which? Because if so, holy shit dude, you need to share that shit with the world - you could single handedly revolutionize global justic, what the fuck are you doing just posting about it on Lemmy???
Depending on what physical evidence is present you can be pretty damn sure in some cases. Adult DNA doesn’t just get into little kid orifices by accident.
Framing by the justice system happens all the time. Adult DNA doesn’t get there by accident, but DNA results can get falsified on purpose.
I get that you really want to torture people while feeling morally justified, but consider the fact that torturing convicted criminals doesn’t actually help anyone, including the victim, and that you will inevitably wind up torturing an innocent person. Period.
Like I said, lock 'em up where they can’t hurt anyone - but torturing them doesn’t do anything except make sadists happy, and I don’t think that’s what we should be optimizing for in a first world justice system.
Funny story, I got banned from refdit for saying we should do this to child molesters.
Nobody should do this to anybody, ever.
Nobody should rape kids either but here we are.
Still no reason to torture innocents, which would happen with your mentality.
I dunno, there’s a couple of convicted pedos that would probably deserve worse.
As with any legal punishment, it’s always necessary to acknowledge that no matter how heinous the crime, some portion of people who are sentenced for that crime, will in fact be innocent.
I’d much much much rather not have a single innocent person be subjected to this, just so I can feel smug that some sick fuck “got what they deserved”. Lock em up where they can’t hurt anyone and call it a day. Cruel and usual punishments help absolutely no one in the end
Idk what it is that any mention of violence towards kids makes some people deranged and still think of themselves morally superior.
It gives their sadistic minds a guilt free socially approved justification to be cruel and inhuman to another person.
Amen; This is why “Innocent Until Proven Guilty Beyond A Shadow of a Doubt!” needs to be a staple of any fair justice system
Realistically, ever justice system is going to have to compromise between between the ease of incarcerating actual criminals and the likelihood of a false conviction, I don’t think it’d be possible to build a system where absolutely 0 innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn’t commit - unless it also was unwilling to convict actual offenders
In general making classification more sensitive will increase your false positive rate, and making it less sensitive will increase your false negative rate. Neither is preferable! The question is whether you consider the cost of a false positive or negative to be higher… I think most would argue that a false negative is far worse if that allows a child/children to be harmed. Consequently, if you are erring on the side of convicting more people, you should also err on the side of “not maiming those people” because the chances are some of them are innocent.
This was more or less my point, though frankly I don’t know that I totally agree that a false negative is “far worse”. Getting a false conviction as a child sexual offender is practically a death sentence in prison, and even if it’s not, it’s certainly enough to ruin that persons life forever. We’re talking about an actual human here. I’m really not sure what it is about children that make people so perfectly OK with throwing away the lives of scores of adults just to keep one child from harm.
Mind you, I’m not advocating that we should let all offenders go free for the sake of keeping any innocents out of prison, but personally I’d rather let several guilty men go free for a crime than see one innocent person have their lives ruined purely due to the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the incompetence of our justice system. Though I recognize that that’s no doubt a controversial opinion. Especially as no one ever believes that they themselves will be falsely convicted of something.
The idea is that one guilty man is capable of harming far more innocent people. You don’t want innocent people harmed because of false accusations, but you’re okay with 'several guilty mentioning free to avoid that, even though those several men will likely end up reoffending and harming more innocent people/children? Obviously there has to be a balance…
We’ve had cases of Prosecutors refusing to convict people of sex crimes if there was evidence it was actually done, due to their own… actions… and we’ve had cases of corrupt judges knowingly giving bullshit guilty verdicts because they were being paid off by private prisons
Obviously there are problems with our justice system so this isn’t realistic. That’s why I said “child molesters” and not “people convicted of child molestation”. By definition child molester means “person who has molested a child”
Do you have a way of determining with 100% accuracy which is which? Because if so, holy shit dude, you need to share that shit with the world - you could single handedly revolutionize global justic, what the fuck are you doing just posting about it on Lemmy???
Depending on what physical evidence is present you can be pretty damn sure in some cases. Adult DNA doesn’t just get into little kid orifices by accident.
Framing by the justice system happens all the time. Adult DNA doesn’t get there by accident, but DNA results can get falsified on purpose.
I get that you really want to torture people while feeling morally justified, but consider the fact that torturing convicted criminals doesn’t actually help anyone, including the victim, and that you will inevitably wind up torturing an innocent person. Period.
Like I said, lock 'em up where they can’t hurt anyone - but torturing them doesn’t do anything except make sadists happy, and I don’t think that’s what we should be optimizing for in a first world justice system.
Child molesters are evil but doing this to them is too far.
Yeah no. Fuck that. Fuck you.