this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
24 points (90.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
2327 readers
1 users here now
There is no such thing as a Stupid Question!
Don't be embarrassed of your curiosity; everyone has questions that they may feel uncomfortable asking certain people, so this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.
- ex. How do I change oil
- ex. How to tie shoes
- ex. Can you cry underwater?
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca still apply!
Thanks for reading all of this, even if you didn't read all of this, and your eye started somewhere else, have a watermelon slice ๐.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know, but by calling inmates criminals, you are 1. Assuming guilt, and 2. Implying that crime is their identity, which is pretty short-sighted and dismissive.
Call them inmates.
But inmates are by definition criminals? They have been judged guilty and sentenced to time in prison.
A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Using criminal as a blanket term to refer to all inmates assumes that 100% of them are guilty, which is demonstrably false.
This is a bit of chicken and egg, but if you've committed a crime, you are a criminal. If you've been accused of a crime, you are not a criminal, until you are proven to be guilty.
If youve been convicted, you've been found guilty. If you've been found guilty, that means you've committed a crime, and are a criminal.
In order to be an inmate (barring those await trials in jails) you must be a criminal.
Your concern, I think, is stemmed from the unfortunate stigma that follows criminals long after their rehabilitation/incarceration, which is a valid stance. However, if someone is currently in a prison, as an inmate, they must be a criminal in the eyes of the law. That doesn't mean they are criminals from then until the end of time, however.
This is a jump in reasoning, because you are declaring the justice system to be perfect. Wrongful convictions occur. Have you never heard of people being released after decades of incarceration, after it was determined they were innocent?
I like how you impose a generalization and include its counterexample. That's like saying "all left handers are dumb except the smart ones".
Your logic train derailed at "if you were found guilty, you commited the crime" have you not watched how many people they release with DNA evidence overturn or witness recanting, and say Oops, guess it wasn't you.
If you were found guilty by the courts, then yes in the eyes of the courts you have a committed the crime. If and when there are appeals, new evidence, or overturned verdicts, then that evaluation would change.
The whole point ends up being that criminal as a word has a specific definition, and those who have been convicted of crimes fit that definition.