What's in my hard drive? How can I get rid of it?
jerry at seibercom.net
Thu Feb 19 13:18:42 UTC 2015
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:22:21 +0100, Polytropon stated:
> Excuse me, but what poop-minded movie is _that_ from?!
> In my (layman's) education about law I learned that "could",
> "would", "should", and a bright imagination don't lead you
> anywhere in a constituational state that is prout on providing
> a legal system under the requirements of the rule of law.
> It's the job of the investigators to _prove_ you're guilty,
> not your job to prove you're not. Of course, that job isn't
> always easy, I can understand this, and far too often, the
> criminals get away because they know "some clever tricks".
> But it's fully unacceptable that the whole thing turns around
> in such a way that there is a _chance_ that innocent people
> get convicted because of the _absence_ of evidence.
Actually, you are not factually correct. There have been convictions based on
the fact that the defendant invoked his 5th. Amendment rights to an
excessive degree. The jury based the conviction on the simple fact that if
the actions of the defendant were not nefarious, he/she would not have used
the 5th. Amendment to such excursiveness.
This has happened several times in the US. Actually, it makes sense. If you
were not hiding something then why not disclose the facts. In any case, you
do not need evidence to convict anyone. You have a legal system that can
spend literally millions of dollars for a conviction and a public defender
that will receive $250. per day per defendant. Usually their requests for
extra funds for investigative resources is denied. The fact that anyone is
ever found not guilty is actually quite unusual. If you don't think so, you
watch way to much TV. Spend a few months at your local court house and see
what really happens.
More information about the freebsd-questions