←back to thread

849 points dvektor | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.498s | source
Show context
bjorkandkd[dead post] ◴[] No.44289491[source]
[flagged]
eddieroger ◴[] No.44289564[source]
From your link:

> The defendant, Preston Thorpe, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to sell

He may have done other things, but his conviction was for possession with intent, and that seems to be why he's locked up. It doesn't make anything else he's done acceptable, but in America he's innocent until proven guilty, and it doesn't seem he was found guilty of assault.

replies(7): >>44289660 #>>44289668 #>>44289818 #>>44289828 #>>44289842 #>>44289845 #>>44290017 #
abxyz ◴[] No.44289660[source]
> ...in America he's innocent until proven guilty...

...in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't extend to internet comments.

replies(1): >>44289686 #
qualeed ◴[] No.44289686[source]
>Innocent until proven guilty doesn't extend to internet comments.

That's not a good thing.

Edit: I cannot really believe that this, of all comments, is controversial. Living life treating everyone as guilty until they prove themselves innocent is... just shitty, let alone exhausting. Do people forget about how many times reddit and other ruined innocent people's lives?

Sometimes HN amazes me with new technology, interesting conversations, etc. Sometimes it amazes me when people are arguing that we should go through life treating people as guilty first, until they are proven innocent. I think I'll go back to not participating for awhile.

replies(6): >>44289712 #>>44289825 #>>44289963 #>>44290003 #>>44290074 #>>44293296 #
abxyz ◴[] No.44289712[source]
Yes, it is. The courts are flawed, the courts get things wrong all the time. Many innocent people are found guilty. If we must apply the legal standard to internet comments, must we condemn people we believe to be innocent? The legal standards exist for the system, not for people. Saying that the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply outside of the legal system is lazy and avoiding making decisions for yourself about how you treat people.

People proven guilty are not necessarily guilty. People proven not guilty are not necessarily innocent. The legal standard exists because a system needs standards.

replies(3): >>44289741 #>>44289803 #>>44289847 #
1. qualeed ◴[] No.44289741[source]
>The courts are flawed, the courts get things wrong all the time.

Is your assertion that random internet commenters get it right more than the courts...?

>"innocent until proven guilty" should apply outside of the legal system is lazy

How is guilty until proven innocent less "lazy"?

replies(1): >>44289789 #
2. abxyz ◴[] No.44289789[source]
My assertion is that "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard that applies to the courts because a system needs standards. People have the luxury of being able to use their judgement. My assertion is that choosing to defer to a legal standard (not proven guilty therefore innocent) is choosing to opt-out of your wonderful human ability to form a judgement based on a lot more than just one single data point.

The person you love comes to you and tells you that they've been attacked by your shady friend. Do you defend your friend from the accusation because "they're innocent until proven guilty" or do you use your judgement and decide that the person you love is telling the truth because you have a lifetime of trust in them?