←back to thread

849 points dvektor | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.534s | 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 #
tonyhart7 ◴[] No.44289803[source]
"People proven guilty are not necessarily guilty. People proven not guilty are not necessarily innocent. The legal standard exists because a system needs standards."

so you saying that court is useless because its not perfet???? its easy to complaint about something but give NOTHING to improve it

You would not do better than people in charge because EASY to say something is wrong but you dont have ANSWER that improve this current standards

replies(1): >>44289868 #
1. abxyz ◴[] No.44289868[source]
I'm saying that the judgement of a court is useless when making a personal judgement because what a court sets out to do is different to what a human sets out to do. The court system is a collection of complicated and convoluted standards and rules and regulations designed specifically to support a system responsible for depriving people of their rights. A court judgement is not "better" than a human judgement, quite the opposite, a court judgement is often worse, because court judgements are formed without access to all information. A jury for example will often have very important information withheld from them because it doesn't satisfy some esoteric court standard. A person would use that information to form a judgement.
replies(1): >>44293545 #
2. tonyhart7 ◴[] No.44293545[source]
this is dunning kruger effect