On Tue, 20 May 2014 21:47:57 +1000
Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On 5/20/14, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:40:56 +1000
Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On 5/17/14, Slavko <linux@slavino.sk> wrote:
...
Don't forget, that justice is not when all criminals are imprisoned
and/or punished, but when no one blameless is persecuted.
Very eloquent and beautiful words.
Thank you Slavko.
But this is precisely the problem with some of the dogmatic idealists
here - by this logic, we should abolish criminal justice entirely, as
it's virtually impossible to guarantee that "no one blameless" will
ever be "persecuted":
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
I don't remember reading the words Slavko posted before, but the way I
read it is as:
"we must make our best efforts to not persecute blameless people" and
"if blameless people are being persecuted, we must make more efforts
[eg with our criminal justice system - to fix this problem]".
So not abolish criminal justice, but make more efforts in this system
to reduce/minimize persecution/punishment of people who should not be
punished.
Of course perfection cannot be achieved in reality, I agree.
Of course. But while it's certainly not a zero-sum game, there's
generally going to be a trade-off: increasing protections for
defendants will save some innocents, at the expense of letting some
guilty go free. The same goes for IP regulation: many of us at least
believe that the law should balance the rights of the IP holders with
the rights of the consumer, and insisting on absolute freedom for the
consumer at the expense of the rights of the rights-holders is wrong.
Celejar