This is a great question.
I think that many laws and regulations are used to serve the guilty. The dilemma is that most of those laws and regulations are there to protect the innocent. Not the least significant of these principles or laws is the presumption of innocence. So, I suppose the thinking is that it is better that some guilty go free than that one innocent be convicted. Of course that does not prevent the innocent of sometimes being wrongfully convicted, but at least the incidence is probably less than if these laws and regulations did not exist.
Guilt is a state that has to be proven to varying degrees of certainty, depending on the court and the charges concerned. That some manage to use the process to avoid justice is indeed a flaw, and perhaps those laws and regulations which are most often used as an escape hatch, should be revisited in order to be rewritten so as to serve justice while still serving the letter of the law.
I believe that where guilt is manifest, the accused should not be permitted to hide behind technicalities in order to evade justice. So my position would be that the purpose of the legal system should be to see justice done. But then I am a simpleton who has no idea of how that position could be translated into reality.
What a peach you are, John.
'But then I am a simpleton who has no idea of how that position could be
translated into reality.'
This is what all of us are up against. How do we translate our ideals into the world as it is? How do we keep our ideals from being corrupted to this or that other purpose?
It seems useless, but I think that we have to keep on hashing it over and trying things out.
That's what we're doing here, I suppose.
As for Emily's question and your belief:
'I believe that where guilt is manifest, the accused should not be
permitted to hide behind technicalities in order to evade justice.'
Perhaps when technicalities are not observed, the officers or agents who subverted the law should be prescribed a fine or jail time; the manifestly guilty could still get the sentence they have coming to them.
"Perhaps when technicalities are not observed, the officers or agents who
subverted the law should be prescribed a fine or jail time; the
manifestly guilty could still get the sentence they have coming to them."
Interesting idea Linda. I'm not sure what will be the effect of this. When people need to constantly protect themselves legally, as for example doctors do, it doesn't necessarily bring out the best in people.
In the case of cops, it might also bring about a lot of false claims and entrapment by the side of criminals.
It's still an interesting idea.
Winifred Beam Kessler tagged this post as Good one!.
