Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Television coverage and censorship in Canada (in net.columbia??)
Message-ID: <607@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 14:23:49 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.607
Posted: Thu Mar 13 14:23:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 23:29:36 EST
References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <814@alberta.UUCP> <827@alberta.UUCP>
Distribution: net.politics
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 48

> 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

I defended a principle of law -- I'm not arguing that the application
of it at the moment makes much sense.  A lot of judges in this country
(especially the ones Gov. Brown appointed in California) have forgotten
that justice is the primary goal, and that the court system isn't a
game.