Philosophical Vegan Forum

Our justice system is based on the notion that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one to be unjustly punished. That is why all cases are supposed to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

That already happens: juries are much less likely to send criminals to their deaths if they know that's the penalty unless the criminals are absolutely unsympathetic and there is overwhelming proof. They'll rule not guilty even if they think the person is probably guilty due to sympathy and knowing a guilty verdict results in death.
So prosecutors know it's a risk to pursue the death penalty where it's not popular.

PsYcHo wrote:Our justice system is based on the notion that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one to be unjustly punished. That is why all cases are supposed to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

But why is that necessarily a good notion?

It could also lead to innocent people being found guilty, but there's a lesser risk there because judges can overrule guilty verdicts and call for repeat trials.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That already happens: juries are much less likely to send criminals to their deaths if they know that's the penalty unless the criminals are absolutely unsympathetic and there is overwhelming proof. They'll rule not guilty even if they think the person is probably guilty due to sympathy and knowing a guilty verdict results in death.

Well, you should rule 'not guilty' if the person is only 'probably guilty'.

brimstoneSalad wrote:So prosecutors know it's a risk to pursue the death penalty where it's not popular.

This would make the risk even more significant. And that's just one example.

Are you also not concerned that this undermines the law in the eyes of citizens, and that it leads to people generally not valuing rule of law?

EquALLity wrote: Well, you should rule 'not guilty' if the person is only 'probably guilty'.

It's always probably at most. There is no absolute certainty.

EquALLity wrote: Are you also not concerned that this undermines the law in the eyes of citizens, and that it leads to people generally not valuing rule of law?

No. See the discussions I had with Mr. Purple on deliberative democracy.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's always probably at most. There is no absolute certainty.

Of course. I got the sense that by 'probably guilty', you were referring to just thinking it's likely a person is guilty, but not necessarily guilty beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.

The idea of a 'reasonable doubt' is also kind of subjective in a sense, but you can consider someone 'probably guilty' without considering it beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.

brimstoneSalad wrote:No. See the discussions I had with Mr. Purple on deliberative democracy.

Where is that?

EquALLity wrote: The idea of a 'reasonable doubt' is also kind of subjective in a sense,

That's the thing. The doubt becomes much more reasonable when the person is going to be killed based on your degree of certainty.
That's why I said effectively Jury nullification already plays a role: it does so subconsciously through cognitive bias.

You might think a person is guilty, but convince yourself more of the doubt if the penalty is very severe.

Where Jury Nullification done consciously makes a big difference is in imprisonment for things like drug offenses.

EquALLity wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:No. See the discussions I had with Mr. Purple on deliberative democracy.

Where is that?

This thread: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2008
You've probably already read the first couple pages, it starts toward the end of the third.