Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
This makes no sense from a moral perspective.
|
I have no interest in imposing my morals upon anyone else. But I'll continue to resist any attempts by others (including the State) to impose their morals upon me.
My only interest is in defending the legal principle. This is partially in my own self-interest given the all too numerous wrongful convictions that have occurred due to over eagerness on the part of law enforcement personnel to "solve" the case by deciding upon a culprit and then seeking out "evidence" to gain a conviction. See "profiling".
See the Guy Paul Morin case where the police decided Morin must be the culprit (despite the timeline of events) because he was "weird". He played the clarinet and he just wasn't a "regular" guy. So one of the things they did was induce another prisoner to lie him up (give false testimony against Morin). And was compensation for Morin then taken out of the "investigating" officers hide? No, it was taken out of the taxpayers' hide instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
If I commit a murder and nobody catches me, I'm innocent?
|
Well if nobody catches you and can say you did it, how can you be treated as anything but innocent? Hence "A man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
...but it doesn't mean those people are innocent.
|
Hmmmpphhhffff! My position is that a man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law. Case closed.
You on the other hand seem determined to explore nuances in the meaning of the word "innocent". In so doing you're simply acting as the handmaiden of those who would happily undermine the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And let me point out that this principle is one of the very few bulwarks we the citizenry have against the overriding power of the State and one that all freedom loving individuals must fight to protect.