convict

Appropriate response: "If we convict the wrong guy, the real murderer goes free, you realize".

Before we convict them in the court of public opinion, can we have some impartial evidence? A single blog post isn't much.

Would you think it fair that one party gets to use evidence to convict you, that you yourself are not allowed to see, or use for your own defense?

I'm just curious if these software tracking systems have been used in court as evidence to convict any of these criminals.

The government doesn't have to convict you in order to radically lower your quality of life. It merely has to investigate you.

The thing is that you don't have enough information to pre-convict the way you have. And, frankly, on a personal note: fuck this automatic calling for the sacking of someone when thing go awry.

A series of court rulings made it more difficult to arrest and convict. Liberal leaning mayors and progressive activists helped curb the age-old practice of police dealing "street justice".

We make the same tradeoff with "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt": better to let guilty people free than convict innocent people. The difference: we need "beyond a reasonable doubt" applied to laws, not just to people.

They aren't interested in what's good for you, they are interested in what's good for themselves: finding someone to convict and thereby pushing their yearly evaluation into the positives. [ed.

I wondered how prosecutors managed to convict at all before these kinds of electronic records were available. I'm not downplaying privacy concerns, but when you can see thing from the other side too it's easier to see it as a set of trade-offs that need weighing.

No doubt helped by convict armies which had regular army guns trained on them from behind and were under no illusions that returning in any condition to still fight would have them shot by their own side. I don't believe there's been a single successful western land invasion of Russia since the Vikings.

The FBI in particular has a pattern of getting indicted for re-selling sensitive data, even before massive amounts of "seize now, convict later" was taking place.

Executing a convict in the US civilian court system requires a trial with a high-burden of proof, and the convict is afforded multiple appeals before the sentence is carried out. But in this case all it takes for the state to execute a suspect is the interpretation of some mid-level analyst.

If a single judge can wrongfully imprison 4,000 children - and not out of ineptitude, but for profit - then how can we possibly trust the rest of the judicial system not to convict innocent people of capital crimes?

If there is one thing that would help an ex-convict to re-integrate into society it would be to be able to read about what is going on in the outside world and to be able to self-educate so they can hit the ground running. After all if you leave jail without marketable skills chances of falling back into crime are higher which eventually serves nobody, least of all society.

Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else."

The entire story that Techdirt is linkjacking is, via HuffPo, "Some congressional staffers left the briefing with the impression that prosecutors believed they needed to convict Swartz of a felony that would put him in jail for a short sentence in order to justify bringing the charges in the first place, according to two aides with knowledge of the briefing." There was a hearing, and "some congressional staffers" were left with an "impression".