this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
13 points (84.2% liked)
Asklemmy
55096 readers
271 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your comment is the ultimate response to the situation. You've personally experienced the problem with imperfect witnesses and malicious actors compounded with incomplete knowledge, yet still insist these very human problems can be solved if you throw a big enough bureaucracy at them. And in your cases, you were perfectly innocent. Imagine if you had been less so. Exactly how do you propose we do that, given that many of these people are less than perfect paragon of legality, with a solution that can't be reversed? And now you want there to be no mistakes made before the death penalty, as well!
I understand your frustration. There are horrible things in this world. Some of them happen in the halls of justice. Making those horrible things irreversible will not improve it.
Because that's the entire purpose of the criminal Justice system, having an impartial judge and 12 people and lawyers to work it out and figure it out, you would think all those people could come to the right conclusion!
What maddens me is that the criminal justice system considers inadmissible as evidence, not allowed to use our instinctive skills like body language reading, intuitively knowing when someone's lying or telling the truth, instincts, etc to contribute to coming to conclusions. In my opinion muddles the whole system because they need evidence and then you get people like OJ Simpson's & Casey Anthony's lawyers who literally let them get away with murder, lawyers find all these legal loopholes to let these people literally get away with murder and something really needs to be fixed. Intuition and common sense need to be allowed in the courtroom.
Please forgive my poor sentence structure, but you get the gist of what I'm saying.
I get what you're saying, but you still haven't shown any reason why a different system, built around fallible people, wouldn't also send innocent people to death row. Trusting people's intuition won't change that, although it might change the mix of innocent people sent to death row.
Blows my mind how a highly educated judge, and two lawyers, and all the other impartial educated people in the room wouldn't be able to come to logical conclusions about these things. The problem is that the law was designed to protect the innocent but it also protects the guilty! I'll mention OJ Simpson & Casey Anthony again. Their lawyers found every loophole available to manipulate the system in their clients' favor. The only innocent people who end up on death row are the ones who don't have highly-paid, highly-dedicated lawyers to prove their innocence. If guilty people can be proven "innocent," then truly innocent people should easily be proven innocent too! If they have a lawyer who gives a damn.