Perhaps this is just a bad headline, but I’ve seen the sentiment expressed elsewhere.
For better or worse (and I think better), we permit jurors to convict a defendant only if they unanimously agree that he or she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases that come down to two equally credible, differing accounts, the defendant has to be found not guilty. Where the accuser is less credible than the defendant, the case probably shouldn’t go to trial.
This means that some rapists, murderers, thieves, and cheats will go free, and that is horrible beyond words, but it’s the best we can do. This is particularly upsetting in rape cases, because they are so often likely to come down to only two differing accounts. (People have consensual sex, which is legal; they rarely engage in consensual murder, which in most states, is not.) Having no good ideas for improving our legal system in this regard, I suggest instead that we work on improving men, as far too many of them do awful things to women.
7 Notes/ Hide
- cnnngbvr reblogged this from jeffmiller and added:
- nicklehopper likes this
- abxc94 likes this
- carlosredmond reblogged this from jeffmiller
- thepoliticalnotebook likes this
- excitablehonky likes this
- mohandasgandhi likes this
- jeffmiller posted this