Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!ken
From: ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Television coverage and censorship in Canada (in net.columbia??)
Message-ID: <827@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 11:17:50 EST
Article-I.D.: alberta.827
Posted: Mon Mar 10 11:17:50 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 13:37:37 EST
References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <814@alberta.UUCP>
Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday)
Distribution: net.politics
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 42

In article <580@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <11544@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes:

>> ...
>>I also do not believe in censorship, but in my message I described how I 
>>would choose between the lesser of two evils.
>>Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the
>>Canadian and American systems of justice.
>>In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and
>>freeedom of the individual.  In fact you lean in this direction so heavily,   
>>that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the
>>police violated the rights of this individual.
>> 
>
>I make no apologies for this.  Better than 10 guilty go free, than one
>innocent man go to prison.  Besides, criminals seldom commit one crime --
>if they don't go to prison on the first crime, they will on the second or
>the third.
>
  No one is arguing that innocent people should go to prison; just those 
that are *known* to be guilty. I fully believe that the benefit of the 
doubt should go to the accused; but, when there is no doubt, justice should
be done. It seems that you've forgotten that there are three parties 
involved in every crime. You've only accounted for the criminal and the 
state but you've forgotten the victims. Society must do justice to the 
victims, as well as to the accused. By your assertion, you would rather 
see ten injustices done rather than one.
  It isn't hard to imagine the injustice done by setting a proven murderer 
free because of some technicality. "Gee Mr. Smith, we had to let the guy 
who murdered your wife and kids go free because we forgot to read him his 
rights." "Don't worry though, these guys usually murder more than once 
- we'll get him next time for sure." As you can see, the fact that a 
criminal will commit more than one crime hardly seems comforting. In fact, 
the possibility of a repeat performance by the criminal is a strong argument 
for justice the first time - ie. locking him up.
  Something that you apparently assume is that setting free those *known* 
to be guilty somehow insures that innocent ones won't be convicted. This 
believe is rather bizarre. I would be interested to see an argument that 
supports it.

															Ken Hruday
                                          University of Alberta