By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - World gone mad: People angry about "innocent until proven gulty"

contestgamer on 10 September 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
contestgamer said:
If you've been accused you're more than 50% likely to be guilty. We can save a TON of time, headaches and heartaches for the victims and money by presuming guilt on the accused and forcing the defendant to prove innocence rather than the other way around. This IMO is the most progressive way of handling the legal system. So yeah if you've been accused of something on campus, to protect the potential victim we should treat you as guilty and allow you to try and prove your innocence afterwards.

What about victims of false accusations? They don't deserve to be protected from headaches/heartaches?

Also... you just stole my million dollar watch. So I'm expecting you to pay me back for that.... or prove that you didn't?

Yeah that sucks. But being the victim of crime is worse than being falsely accused. So we recalibrate the justice system to show empathy foremost to potential victims of crime and second to potential criminals of crime. If you're falsely accused you need to prove it, and if you prove it the false accusor will receive serious consequences. It's the same as the current system, we're just moving the burder off crime victims and shifting them on to (mostly) criminals.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 10 September 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
contestgamer said:

Yeah that sucks. But being the victim of crime is worse than being falsely accused. So we recalibrate the justice system to show empathy foremost to potential victims of crime and second to potential criminals of crime. If you're falsely accused you need to prove it, and if you prove it the false accusor will receive serious consequences. It's the same as the current system, we're just moving the burder off crime victims and shifting them on to (mostly) criminals.

Being falsely accused is being a victim of crime though.

And how exactly do you prove your innocence? For example when I (jokingly) accused you of stealing a watch, how would you prove you didn't? There's only 3 ways I can think of to do that. Prove that nothing was stolen in the first place or that it was someone else that stole it. But why on earth should you do either of those things? The police are the ones getting paid to investigate that kind of stuff, it shouldn't be up to you to do it (not as if you could from a jail cell anyways). And the 3rd way? Constantly recording everything you do to prove that you didn't do anything illegal. Why should people have to do that?

Not to mention that your way would hurt minority groups the hardest too. How many times do you think muslims are accused of being terrorists without proof? How do they prove they're not? And why should they have to constantly prove they're not terrorists just because they're muslim?

Actually, considering what he's said in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he supports it.



contestgamer on 10 September 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
contestgamer said:

Yeah that sucks. But being the victim of crime is worse than being falsely accused. So we recalibrate the justice system to show empathy foremost to potential victims of crime and second to potential criminals of crime. If you're falsely accused you need to prove it, and if you prove it the false accusor will receive serious consequences. It's the same as the current system, we're just moving the burder off crime victims and shifting them on to (mostly) criminals.

Being falsely accused is being a victim of crime though.

And how exactly do you prove your innocence? For example when I (jokingly) accused you of stealing a watch, how would you prove you didn't? There's only 3 ways I can think of to do that. Prove that nothing was stolen in the first place or that it was someone else that stole it. But why on earth should you do either of those things? The police are the ones getting paid to investigate that kind of stuff, it shouldn't be up to you to do it (not as if you could from a jail cell anyways). And the 3rd way? Constantly recording everything you do to prove that you didn't do anything illegal. Why should people have to do that?

Not to mention that your way would hurt minority groups the hardest too. How many times do you think muslims are accused of being terrorists without proof? How do they prove they're not? And why should they have to constantly prove they're not terrorists just because they're muslim?


You make valid points and no system is perfect. I think you could protect against the type of abuse you mentioned in the following way: in the case of majority accusers (along race or gender - so in the US that would be white and male, male being a numerical minority but a majority in terms of influence and power) we maintain the existing justice system that requires the burden of proof to be placed on the accuser. For minority accusers we would have the alternative system that shifts the burden of proof on to the accused. I realize that right wing heads will explode, but this kind of system would lead to the least amount of abuse and would result, in comparison to our existing justice system, to justice that represents fairness most closely.



Aeolus451 on 10 September 2017
contestgamer said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Being falsely accused is being a victim of crime though.

And how exactly do you prove your innocence? For example when I (jokingly) accused you of stealing a watch, how would you prove you didn't? There's only 3 ways I can think of to do that. Prove that nothing was stolen in the first place or that it was someone else that stole it. But why on earth should you do either of those things? The police are the ones getting paid to investigate that kind of stuff, it shouldn't be up to you to do it (not as if you could from a jail cell anyways). And the 3rd way? Constantly recording everything you do to prove that you didn't do anything illegal. Why should people have to do that?

Not to mention that your way would hurt minority groups the hardest too. How many times do you think muslims are accused of being terrorists without proof? How do they prove they're not? And why should they have to constantly prove they're not terrorists just because they're muslim?


You make valid points and no system is perfect. I think you could protect against the type of abuse you mentioned in the following way: in the case of majority accusers (along race or gender - so in the US that would be white and male, male being a numerical minority but a majority in terms of influence and power) we maintain the existing justice system that requires the burden of proof to be placed on the accuser. For minority accusers we would have the alternative system that shifts the burden of proof on to the accused. I realize that right wing heads will explode, but this kind of system would lead to the least amount of abuse and would result, in comparison to our existing justice system, to justice that represents fairness most closely.

That's progressive because you're saying that we should discriminate against people based on their sex and ethnicity. 



contestgamer on 10 September 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
contestgamer said:


You make valid points and no system is perfect. I think you could protect against the type of abuse you mentioned in the following way: in the case of majority accusers (along race or gender - so in the US that would be white and male, male being a numerical minority but a majority in terms of influence and power) we maintain the existing justice system that requires the burden of proof to be placed on the accuser. For minority accusers we would have the alternative system that shifts the burden of proof on to the accused. I realize that right wing heads will explode, but this kind of system would lead to the least amount of abuse and would result, in comparison to our existing justice system, to justice that represents fairness most closely.

So rather than a system that isn't in itself racist but can be abused by racists, you'd rather a system that is inherently racist?

Why exactly would you prefer a justice system that not only treats people as more/less trustworthy but also gives them more/less rights based solely on the colour of their skin over one where people are supposed to be treated equally?

 

You cant be racist against whites or sexist against males. They're the dominant group. This is like affirmative action for our justice system - it gives a slight advantage to minority groups to help even out the playing field a bit. Minority groups are also unlikely to make false accusations, while whites are, so we're protecting against abuse as well.



Around the Network
contestgamer on 10 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
contestgamer said:


You make valid points and no system is perfect. I think you could protect against the type of abuse you mentioned in the following way: in the case of majority accusers (along race or gender - so in the US that would be white and male, male being a numerical minority but a majority in terms of influence and power) we maintain the existing justice system that requires the burden of proof to be placed on the accuser. For minority accusers we would have the alternative system that shifts the burden of proof on to the accused. I realize that right wing heads will explode, but this kind of system would lead to the least amount of abuse and would result, in comparison to our existing justice system, to justice that represents fairness most closely.

That's progressive because you're saying that we should discriminate against people based on their sex and ethnicity. 

 

Wrong. You cant discriminate against whites/males. This is progressive because it evens the playing field and gives fairness to those most abused by our current system - the goal is a fair justice system, currently which it is not.



Aeolus451 on 10 September 2017
contestgamer said:
Aeolus451 said:

That's progressive because you're saying that we should discriminate against people based on their sex and ethnicity. 

 

Wrong. You cant discriminate against whites/males. This is progressive because it evens the playing field and gives fairness to those most abused by our current system - the goal is a fair justice system, currently which it is not.

It doesn't work like that. This is the kind of shit that make people think that progressives are off their rockers and why trump got elected.



contestgamer on 10 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
contestgamer said:

 

Wrong. You cant discriminate against whites/males. This is progressive because it evens the playing field and gives fairness to those most abused by our current system - the goal is a fair justice system, currently which it is not.

It doesn't work like that. This is the kind of shit that make people think that progressives are off their rockers and why trump got elected.

We're just fighting for quality and fairness. Trump got elected because there are a lot of bigots and racists still left. Over time though they will be marginalized once minority groups become the majority and stomp out white racism.



Aeolus451 on 10 September 2017
contestgamer said:
Aeolus451 said:

It doesn't work like that. This is the kind of shit that make people think that progressives are off their rockers and why trump got elected.

We're just fighting for quality and fairness. Trump got elected because there are a lot of bigots and racists still left. Over time though they will be marginalized once minority groups become the majority and stomp out white racism.

No, you're not. Your little group is fighting for an ideology and to keep their prescribed party in power. Trump was elected because of average americans getting tired of corrupted democrates doing things that only benefit them/keeping people voting for them and SJW/progressives twisting everything for their perverted world view. You don't give one shit about normal everyday people. Hell, you just shitted all over all males for the sake of a twisted version of justice. 



VGPolyglot on 10 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
contestgamer said:

We're just fighting for quality and fairness. Trump got elected because there are a lot of bigots and racists still left. Over time though they will be marginalized once minority groups become the majority and stomp out white racism.

No, you're not. Your little group is fighting for an ideology and to keep their prescribed party in power. Trump was elected because of average americans getting tired of corrupted democrates doing things that only benefit them/keeping people voting for them and SJW/progressives twisting everything for their perverted world view. You don't give one shit about normal everyday people. Hell, you just shitted all over all males for the sake of a twisted version of justice. 

I'm beginning to wonder if contestgamer even has a coherent ideology, in the past he had mentioned not caring about the lives of Arabs because they're apparently worth less than a white's life.