Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
For an incredibly long time, the purpose of the police was to offer the appearance of stability and consequences. They rarely “got their man” and instead opted to simply scapegoat a random undesirable in order to perpetuate the lie, if they did anything tangible at all.
My question is, when do you think they finally managed to at least break even? What year did the number of cases actually solved equal or exceed the number of cases bungled, weaponized, or ignored?
What makes you think it ever did?
Objectively, there are more safeguards and methods for investigation now than 100 years ago. Dooming over a broken but repairable system is rarely constructive.
Pretending that it's less broken than it is isn't more constructive.
You’re telling me that you legitimately believe that over 50% of crimes worth investigating are attributed to the wrong person or ignored? The issues plaguing the system are more varied and nuanced than every other death row inmate being unjustly imprisoned. What you’re saying legitimately sounds like nonsense.
Then show your proof they're wrong.
They made a claim, you doof. I have no proof of the antithesis of their claim.
So they may not be wrong then.
"may" sure but it's extremely unlikely that they're correct
Exactly why dooming isn’t constructive. May, might be, possibly, etc. are worthless words. Without specific and actionable information, it’s just distracting noise. You don’t “possibly” incarcerate more innocents than not. You do or you don’t. Which is to say, I agree with you
Then you need proof. Otherwise you're just guessing.
Saddling others with the effort of sourcing information they did not call into question is a typical tactic of Russian disinformation agents. As is affirming something incorrect using two separate accounts. I’m not accusing you of anything, but I am saying that you’re acting precisely like a Russian disinformation agent and I urge you to consider your behavior.
As a Canadian I can't understand how prosecutors continue to bang their guilty drums when DNA evidence exonerates someone. And it happens almost every time.
Like do they just prefer lies over truth?
Honest answer: the legal theory is that if each side doesn't argue their case as well as they can, justice can't be complete. That's why there are things like mistrials when the defense attorneys do a poor job, and appeals only work to the extent that certain things were brought up furing the original trial.
In practice it's deeply flawed.
Honestly, I live in a timeline where we have openly corrupt Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas in our life. It is my opinion they will choose their own personal enrichment over the actual fairness of a situation. Dropping a case admits you were wrong and these folks don't want to be seen as making any mistake in judgement, it hurts their careers and personal enrichment.
I highly doubt that it was the same judge and prosecutor after 30 years, so the present day judiciary personnel involved having personal stakes in the case seems unlikely. But I don't disagree that certain bloodthirsty prosecutors and/or judges likely hate admitting the system is deeply flawed when it comes to convicting innocents they've already deemed criminals.
Your prosecutors are elected too I believe. Which means if they can "look hard on crime" for the next election cycle it can give them a better chance at winning.
In Canada we don't have half the elections you do. Neither police chiefs, prosecutors or judges are elected ... here they are appointed, which imo is a better system.
There's pros and cons to both systems. With so many positions being elected, it is supposed to make it more difficult for unilateral, systemic corruption to take root. In theory, anyway. But, hardly anyone pays attention to local politics and local journalism is virtually dead in all but larger metro areas nowadays. As such, propaganda is much easier to spread and corruption goes unnoticed in all but the most egregious scenarios in many smaller areas.
In my system it is extremely rare for a judge to found scamming the system. They're also very wary of having a ruling vacated because they didn't follow our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Being appointed also negates them being bought off through donations to an election campaign. And most (if not all) Canadian judges set aside their personal politics to rule as unbiased as possible. The very few who don't often end up censured ... and that doesn't bode well for their judicial futures.