It says the statute of limitations for lying in court was passed by the time he was cleared
That is such utter fucking bullshit. I wonder if that’s why she finally came clean knowing she was safe from the consequences of her actions, alternatively he could still be in there if that was the case and they didn’t run out.
So you cant even extend them without risking innocent people staying in gaol longer.
That actually highlights an interesting conflict - if the fear of prosecution keeps someone from coming clean until they’re “safe”, would it be better to not have a punishment for it at all? That seems unfair, of course, but is it more unfair than being falsely imprisoned longer than one needs to be? Maybe punishing people that are caught and pardoning those that come clean?
Better let the guilty go unpunished than the innocent suffer.
It’s the very cornerstone of justice, a system of law which sacrifices the innocent in its zeal is generally not considered justice, but tyranny. Examples include things like witch trials, or the Khmer Rouge.
Practically speaking: The right time to sentence an accuser for lying is during the trial against the accused, not after.
Better let the guilty go unpunished than the innocent suffer.
I’m pretty much of the same mind, but unfortunately it’s a hard pitch to sell to the majority, it seems. Many are hungry for “justice”, which translates to revenge to most. It’s heartbreaking that innocents get crushed under a society’s campaign for punishment.
I appreciate this lighthearted solution in otherwise depressing thread. Of course in the real world for this to work, news sources and search engines would have to be censored, and lawyers would have to lie.
That is such utter fucking bullshit. I wonder if that’s why she finally came clean knowing she was safe from the consequences of her actions, alternatively he could still be in there if that was the case and they didn’t run out.
So you cant even extend them without risking innocent people staying in gaol longer.
That actually highlights an interesting conflict - if the fear of prosecution keeps someone from coming clean until they’re “safe”, would it be better to not have a punishment for it at all? That seems unfair, of course, but is it more unfair than being falsely imprisoned longer than one needs to be? Maybe punishing people that are caught and pardoning those that come clean?
Better let the guilty go unpunished than the innocent suffer.
It’s the very cornerstone of justice, a system of law which sacrifices the innocent in its zeal is generally not considered justice, but tyranny. Examples include things like witch trials, or the Khmer Rouge.
Practically speaking: The right time to sentence an accuser for lying is during the trial against the accused, not after.
I’m pretty much of the same mind, but unfortunately it’s a hard pitch to sell to the majority, it seems. Many are hungry for “justice”, which translates to revenge to most. It’s heartbreaking that innocents get crushed under a society’s campaign for punishment.
Seems unsolvable :(
No
This solution is, say there isn’t a punishment, then when the person confesses, punish them anyway.
I appreciate this lighthearted solution in otherwise depressing thread. Of course in the real world for this to work, news sources and search engines would have to be censored, and lawyers would have to lie.
How do you envision this working past the first time? O.o