Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Like I said, we need to have trials to root out who's truly innocent.
What would your solution be?
|
Wow. This is a tough question that's never been asked before. Let me see...
I think if I were creating a system to deal with this situation I'd institute a system that required an initial, fairly quick hearing in which a representative of the executive branch (lets call him a prosecutor, just to coin a phrase) would be required to present a minimal level of proof to a decision maker (who I'll call a "judge") who would decide whether the evidence presented met a minimum threshold. If not, the person would be freed. If so, the prisoner would be given time to mount a defense while the prosecutor gathered a more complete set of evidence. The prisoner would be appointed a representative familiar with the workings of this system (called, maybe, "defense counsel"). The prisoner, or at least the defense counsel, would be able to review the evidence that was to be presented against him later. Finally, not too long after the initial hearing (say, less than 18 months if we're being ambitious), the prosecutor would present his evidence during a formal process we'll call a "trial" to either the "judge" or perhaps a small group of citizens assembled to decide the issue (we'll call that a "jury" - don't ask me where I come up with these names - they just come to me). If there is a fairly large degree of certainty about the person's guilt, he is incarcerated for a period of time proportionate to the severity of his crimes. If there isn't sufficent evidence to be relatively sure (perhaps "beyond a reasonable doubt"), the person is freed.
Of course, I'm sure a system like that would be too unwieldy to apply to
hundreds of prisoners. My god, can you imagine?
