Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 18:22:33 GMT
WTG KH. You got hundreds of potentially guilty people a get out of jail free card because of your pure incompetence. That's a great resume builder for the White House. I can see why Joe Joe the Senile Candidate would pick you.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 12, 2020 19:03:52 GMT
WTG KH. You got hundreds of potentially guilty people a get out of jail free card because of your pure incompetence. That's a great resume builder for the White House. I can see why Joe Joe the Senile Candidate would pick you. So, not innocent until proven guilty then. The issue isn't that this let "potentially guilty" people out of jail or incompetence. It's that she violated people's constitutional rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Aug 12, 2020 19:08:24 GMT
WTG KH. You got hundreds of potentially guilty people a get out of jail free card because of your pure incompetence.
Won't that save time and money rather than commuting sentences à la Trump?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 19:20:32 GMT
WTG KH. You got hundreds of potentially guilty people a get out of jail free card because of your pure incompetence. That's a great resume builder for the White House. I can see why Joe Joe the Senile Candidate would pick you. So, not innocent until proven guilty then. The issue isn't that this let "potentially guilty" people out of jail or incompetence. It's that she violated people's constitutional rights. That is not what I said. Where did you get that? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 12, 2020 19:23:28 GMT
That is not what I said. Where did you get that? Which part? Your concern is clearly not that people's rights were violated. You also seem to be presuming these people are guilty rather than innocent. Considering the issue (tampering with evidence), that seems a gross presumption. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 19:30:55 GMT
That is not what I said. Where did you get that? Which part? Your concern is clearly not that people's rights were violated. You also seem to be presuming these people are guilty rather than innocent. Considering the issue (tampering with evidence), that seems a gross presumption. If someone committed a crime, then people's rights were violated. If that crime wasn't prosecuted because the AG, at the time, looked the other way as her staff falsified evidence, then that is an affront to the rights of those victims. Evidence does not equal guilt. But lack of evidence as a result of incompetence is an injustice. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 12, 2020 20:00:24 GMT
If someone committed a crime, then people's rights were violated. If that crime wasn't prosecuted because the AG, at the time, looked the other way as her staff falsified evidence, then that is an affront to the rights of those victims. Evidence does not equal guilt. But lack of evidence as a result of incompetence is an injustice. First, if people were denied a fair trial, their rights were violated: see the 6th Amendment. Second, these people were prosecuted (read your own link). That's the problem. They were prosecuted even though the evidence was tampered with, hence why their rights were violated. Thirdly, these were drug cases (the drug lab technician was stealing drugs from the lab - from your own link), and if they were possession cases, you're looking at an essentially victimless crime. So, this is all part of over-criminalization and the War on Drugs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 21:15:10 GMT
If someone committed a crime, then people's rights were violated. If that crime wasn't prosecuted because the AG, at the time, looked the other way as her staff falsified evidence, then that is an affront to the rights of those victims. Evidence does not equal guilt. But lack of evidence as a result of incompetence is an injustice. First, if people were denied a fair trial, their rights were violated: see the 6th Amendment. Second, these people were prosecuted (read your own link). That's the problem. They were prosecuted even though the evidence was tampered with, hence why their rights were violated. Thirdly, these were drug cases (the drug lab technician was stealing drugs from the lab - from your own link), and if they were possession cases, you're looking at an essentially victimless crime. So, this is all part of over-criminalization and the War on Drugs. I'm not saying that their cases shouldn't have been dismissed. I'm saying that opportunity to prosecute the guilty was lost because of incompetence. |
|
