[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You clearly don't know that our justice system is designed on the principle that it is better to set a guilty man free than to imprison an innocent one, hence why the burde of proof is on the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand that perfectly. My parents were prosecutors. I don't think you got my meaning.

In the specific case of sex offenders, as we've discussed here at some length, very many of them become repeat offenders when released.

So, I don't really see how your last post is relevant. I'm comparing castrating innocent people vs. saving potential victims(since sex offenders often repeat offend), not simply setting free guilty parties who may never offend again. My argument is specific to sex offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but our justice system isn't designed on predicting what will happen in the future.

I can't go and kill George W. Bush and say that I saved more future lives of soldiers in Iraq, so I did okay. Nor can I go kill Jesse Jackson and argue that his message would have created at least two more murderers had he lived.

Your whole calculus deals with generalities and predictions about future behavior, but our justice system is designed to handle specific cases that judge accountability for past behaviors. It's generally not considered fair to give people harsher penalties because you suspect they are more likely to repeat their offense. Justice is not about looking into magic 8-balls, but rather assigning an appropriate penalty for past crimes. What is appropriate in given situations, of course, is a matter of huge debate. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]