Quote:
Originally Posted by badgeguy
And I'm against the argument that our judicial system seems to try and get people convicted of "something" rather than nothing when the evidence is really inconclusive....(a point being a local trial of a guy named Widmer who had been tried FOUR times in order for the prosecution to get him locked up...even though all three previous trials he was found not guilty of murdering his wife)....the evidence and the whole thing just seemed to me to be a witch hunt!
|
Well if there's no evidence, then a person won't (or shouldn't) be convicted of anything.
And how was this person tried four times? Shouldn't double jeopardy apply?
The reason that there are lesser charges offered is because there are different levels of punishment. For example, let's say someone was driving while under the influence and killed someone, and the only charge on the table was first degree murder. Would you feel comfortable convicting someone of that, possibly sending them to death row? Probably not. This is why the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter exists.
95% of cases never make it to trial. People plea to lesser charges. This saves time and money, and it's necessary. It's not a matter of "let's convict this person of SOMETHING because we know he's guilty and even without evidence, we need a way to bring him down!" .. it's more about reaching justice quickly, having options when it comes to sentencing, and finding the correct charges for the crimes that are committed.
Threaded Mode
