Interesting... So you believe that liberal Nevada gun laws should be imposed on restrictive California?

Nevermind... No response necessary.

chez: It's fine to put innocent people in prison as long as we do so in a racially equal manner.

You could easily get a warrant for surveillance in the current system if you can show that someone is 95% likely to be a serial killer.

Uh you realize the opposite is also consistent with his post right?

No

Chez I'd put far less people in prison and treat them far better

Racially equal is vital

Dealing with the problem of rape far better is vital

OK but your proposals would have more innocent people being convicted of crimes.

I accept the objection that the USA justices system is so ****ed up that even potentially good changes cause major problems and may not be worth pursuing

Against that I'd tend to advocate for junking the USA lol justice system and starting again. The UK system has enough problems.

Uh the USA justice system may indeed suck but that isn't at all the basis of my claim.

Your proposal will cause more innocent people to be convicted of crimes in ANY justice system. That is literally what it does, by design.

It really is mind-boggling that some people believe that a major problem with the US justice system is the conviction threshold of "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Then you assume conviction implies prison which I dont because I dont think prison is appropriate for being found 'probably guilty' of rape (or whatever the phrasing is) except in very rare cases.

1. I never said prison, you did.

2. Yeah I mean somewhat reducing conviction thresholds while also massively reducing penalties might be okay but I suspect you are going to be fighting alone in your quest to make rape convictions not carry prison time in order to, er, help stop rapes?

I suppose you are advocating for a "social credit" system like China is beginning to implement?

Instead of prison?

[QUOTE=TiltedDonkey;53780985]1. I never said prison, you did.[QUOTE]
Getting closer at least.

A lessor conviction may do a far better job for (potential) rape victims than rapists getting off scot free. I agree that arguing for far less prison (and for more humane treatment of the convicted) sometimes feels too much like pissing in the wind these days.

I doubt it.

More like stuff like protections orders, monitoring, registers etc. I think, for example, it would be good for the 'likely' victim to be able to prevent the 'very likely' rapist from coming near them.

The standard for getting a restraining order is not the same as the standard for being convicted of a crime.

Indeed but a conviction on a lessor standard of probably guilty, makes protection orders (and other actions) a formality and far more legitimate.

How? Being convicted of a crime is not an automatic restraining order right now. In what way is this conviction more legitimate than a restraining order? It seems far less legitimate to me. I'm not sure whether it is more absurd or more frightening in an orwellian way.

Being convicted of rape is hopefully a prison sentence right now - Even in a less prison friendly world.

If a rapist is found inncoent or not prosecuted at all then it's bad for the victim and potrential future victims.

Imbetween is a 'likely guilty' which wouldn't be prison but wouldn't be penalty free. The penalties would be about protecting past and potential future victims.

You have an irrational lack of fear of the state imo.

Obviously I disagree but I do understand the criticism.

Apologies chez, forgot I said prison in that first post.

You are interviewing for a new employee. You do a background check and find the prospective employee has a "likely guilty" verdict against for a serious crime.

How does this change your hiring decision?

This is a very naive view of civil actions in the u.s.

Again, this just shows a massive misunderstanding of the legal system. By and large, plea deals are not driven by prosecutorial fear of an acquittal.

To be fair to David, a third option besides guilty and not guilty is not some idea that he came up with in his basement. The idea has been around for a while and it is worth thinking about how it would play out.

David, in your view, what is the problem that needs to be solved, and why do you think that a probably guilty solution is the best way to solve it?

My gut instinct is that this is not a good idea. As many have suggested, I think it would significant increase the number of factually innocent people who either are convicted or plead guilty. And some nontrivial percentage of people who would have been found guilty would now be found probably guilty.

The net effect would be to increase the already absurd percentage of people in this country who have some exposure to our criminal justice system, while somewhat reducing the average sentence.

The former is a huge negative, especially given this country’s demonstrated inability to reintegrate convicted criminals into society. The latter is a potential benefit. Criminal sentences in the US are too long. But introducing probably guilty verdicts, especially for some crimes but not others, strikes me as a roundabout and very inequitable way of addressing that problem.

It has to be a technical solution where the real trial is on camera and automatically translated into a neutral animation. Not sure if it's quite feasible yet or not but it's not science fiction.