SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: greenspirit who wrote (67494)12/20/1999 1:44:00 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Sorry, don't know what you are talking about.

How does the law deal with people who lie about all sorts of crimes now?

Why "now"? Haven't people always lied about crimes? How many people admit that they commited a crime? Not too many, IMO. On the other hand, they have the right not to incriminate themselves.

No system is going to be perfect, but creating a "secret police like force" of, in many cases, undertrained bureaucrats operating outside the bounds of due process procedures isn't the answer.

If you are talking about CPS, I've already told you that I don't think CPS violates due process, here, anyway. Criminal investigations are usually confidential. It's not at all uncommon for informants to be kept confidential. Is that what you are talking about? If not, what?

Do you believe the premise that innocent until proven guilty is important and necessary for a sound just legal system? And if so why?

It's part of OUR legal system. It's not considered essential by all legal systems. The reason we have it is to put the burden on the prosecution to prove wrong-doing, as the state has greater resources. Of course, frequently criminals who are really guilty go free because the state hasn't met its burden. Our legal system considers that acceptable.

But you're not really talking about that, are you? Aren't you talking about your friend whose daughter said he abused her?