What to fear?
Hello Rabbi!
I wanted to know your Honor’s opinion on two matters.
1. In serious crimes such as rape and murder, what is more to be feared than a wrongful conviction or a mistrial?
2. Is there room for a student association, and if so, how much and how?
Thank you very much!
1. It is accepted (and so is the Rambam) that it is better to release criminals than to convict an innocent person. That is why they require beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction. The reasoning for this is not simple, and it can depend on the situation in question. For example, if the punishment only achieves deterrence of others, then there is less importance for punishment because deterrence is achieved by other criminals, and in this case he is not punished because it is not certain that he was a criminal. But if the danger is posed by him himself, there is more reason to fear releasing him. Sometimes administrative detention is resorted to in such a situation. Furthermore, I previously wrote a column here (47) about how the entire concept of punishment in the world is distorted in my opinion. The punishment is proportional to the severity of the offense, and therefore dangerous people are released after they have served their sentence. In my opinion, they should sit in prison as long as they are dangerous, regardless of the severity of their offense.
2. Absolutely not. There is a place for learners, but not for a society of learners (i.e. a complete society where everyone learns). I also wrote a column about this in the past (34).
In statistics, a type 1 error is usually more serious. That is, rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternative hypothesis. I remember in the course the lecturer brought this example.
But his assumption there was that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I wonder if the example is still relevant if we don't accept this assumption.
You can't determine severity unless you decide in advance what the 0 hypothesis is. You've already swallowed your assumptions. The assumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty says exactly that, so there's nothing to rely on.
This is not an assumption but an assumption, because it is known that most people do not commit serious crimes such as rape or murder. Like most Dalits.
Besides, the logic of reasonable doubt is primum non nucra. If you have not been able to show that you bring benefit, then do not do it.
This is a common mistake. There is no presumptive (majority) assumption here. The majority of all people do not murder, but among those who stand trial, there is no such majority. After all, you don't put someone on trial who is randomly caught on the street. The prosecution is after filtering, such as motivation, opportunity, possibility and ability, testimonies and police investigations, etc. Among these, there is literally no innocent majority.
It's like the presumption of wealth is not based on a majority. Although usually what is under a person's hand is his, among those who are in a legal dispute, there is no majority in favor of the possessor.
Therefore, both of these presumptions are legal presumptions and not a statistical majority (Dalitha Kaman).
Also with respect to benefit, you definitely bring benefit by putting the defendant in prison. Certain deterrence and also certain retribution.
Regarding possession, I understand. You are right.
Regarding the benefit, if he is not guilty, there is no deterrence, but rather a loss of public confidence in the legal system and also the addition of a person to the world of crime. Besides, the meaning of criminal law is a monopoly on violence and its regulation. Before using violence against a person (imprisoning him), it must be proven that there is indeed a reason for it. Otherwise, the legal system will be no different from an underworld gang settling scores.
Disagree. The public does not know that he is innocent. On the contrary, it is not the case when there is good evidence against him, but some doubt still remains. So why not convict? You are probably punishing a guilty person, creating a deterrent for potential criminals (and they cannot even rely on an acquittal based on a small doubt). In contrast, there is a small concern that you have convicted an innocent person. It is really not trivial not to convict.
And of course this is a far cry from gangs that engage in violence without investigation and without justice. Not close to each other.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
