The non telling tales of a un descript trader of goods.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Due process, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
I'm sure the innocent 10% would rather not have to spend ten years waiting on appeals either.

[Lil Lola]

Yeah, ten years and only 190 go scot-free and the rest of them are just waiting for their death day in a prison cell.

[Most Lee Harmless]

'Scot-free' implies they got away with it. These are defendants proved to be innocent, under the due process of the law. It does sound like you think they should not protest their innocence but shut up and die quietly and quickly so as not to inconvenience and delay the judicial murder of the guilty.

[Dmanwuzhere]

lol nice slight of hand on the statistics
10 percent are not exonerated as in found to not be guilty
that statistic is actually around 4 percent
including sentences that have been reduced would jump the percentage up
but they would still be guilty so nice try
additionally cases on appeal are normally seeking charges to be dropped more often than not for reasons other than not guilty arguments
a large portion is for juror misconduct... defense lawyer actions... mean old judge etc

in addition the 4 percent is going to be a retroactive percentage
gained from utilizing data that goes back decades to now
obviously with dna and advancements in criminology and its tools
evidence is rarely a he said she said case or a simple weapons plant the way it was when past statistics were made

realistically the numbers show the justice system works

although the death penalty has been slowed for awhile
making most death penalty inmates a human rights violation
as i think we are only supposed to hold them at max for 20 years on death row
i didnt bother checking to see if we get any sentence reductions over that
as it probably would be tossed out in court

[Most Lee Harmless]

I quoted a standardly accepted figure for exonerations.

You should maybe consider the basic legal principals behind 'due process' : that the accused is innocent until proven guilty : that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offence : that the evidence presented is unbiased, accurate and untainted by bias, incompetence, ill-will or intent to conceal the evidentiary truths of the matter : that all the officers of the court and the jury, abide by their Oaths and act accordingly.

If that is not so then 'due process' has not been folowed and thus guilt has not been proven within the Constitutional bounds of the law.

That does not mean the accused is an angel, nor that suspicion still attaches to them : it simply means nothing has been proved otherwise and that is the standard the law should abide by.

If that means some guilty folk walk free, then that is the price of free justice. Unless we wish to abide by 'guilt by accusation' : in which case close the legal system down and hire a few lynch mobs : quick and cheap justice for all.

[Dmanwuzhere]

when you say standard accepted figure you mean one that is widely promoted by a certain politically aligned group of individuals
those individuals use wording to clump multiple data points to affect the outcome
been doing it for years ... and it works for all political parties en masse but in a debate it falls flat

(listen to our current press secretary
biden has whooped gas shortage... the economy ... gas prices... avoided a recession.... dems are ahead in the polls... and many other agenda items
the crazy lady quotes stats and gets picked apart by doocy on stats almost daily)

freed... due to innocence
and guilty with sentence reduction
should never be clumped together but they are
simply because death sentence converted to life sentence
is a change does not mean they were exonerated

stat manipulation is an old trick
and if you are not researching beyond your first... preferred... or supporting set of facts
you are robbing yourself


oh and being found guilty and appealing due to a juror that looked at you funny or a lawyer that came in with his hair mussed or a judge that looks mean should not lead to dismissal of charges... thats not part of due process... thats you not liking what a jury of your peers decided after listening to your lawyer and a da presented and a judge ruled on and should be called bs process

there have been many appeals due to perjury ... thats legit ... if you can prove someone lied it changes the weight of that individuals testimony
certainly a part of due process .... anything that is not working to prove your innocence or the weight of a witness testimony but instead focuses on actions of others is a part of that bs process

[Lil Lola]

'Scot-free' implies they got away with it. These are defendants proved to be innocent, under the due process of the law. It does sound like you think they should not protest their innocence but shut up and die quietly and quickly so as not to inconvenience and delay the judicial murder of the guilty.

Well excuse me for using the wrong term. But please don't assume that is how I feel. There are others who are guilty do take advantage of the appeals system.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Some terms have meanings that are oft forgot or get used differently in different cultures and times.

I did not assume : that it why I said 'it sounds like' rather than 'you think'. Inquiry not accusation.

Do the guilty take every advantage they can? Yep.

Does not mean the innocent should be denied their Constitutional right to due process.?

[Lil Lola]

They aren't denied but 10 years is excessive. But that is probably because they have difficulty finding someone who will reopen their case.

[Most Lee Harmless]

The wheels of justice grind slowly. That seems to be the case in most countries.

It also seems to me, from observation, that countries with speedy justice systems generally seem weighted in favour of the prosecution and have less regard for the rights of the defendant.

But thats the thing about living in a country with rights guaranteed under a Constitution : if you want to disregard one then you can not demand the rest be upheld, especially when the mechanism, due process, used to uphold that Constitution is the one being disregarded.