[ SECRET POST #3534 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3534 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Paget Brewster, Criminal Minds]


__________________________________________________



03.
(Orange is the New Black)


__________________________________________________



04.
[Lord of the Rings]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Misha Collins, Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



06.
(Breaking Bad)


__________________________________________________



07.
[Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 26 secrets from Secret Submission Post #505.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Trial by internet.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I still highly disagree. As anon said above, we don't have access to what the courts have - evidence. Some cases become open to public perusal (and are therefore appropriately judged), but "trial by internet" occurs when a bunch of people decide a pending or sealed case based on their own personal feelings.

You can't completely disregard the justice system and then demand, in the same breath, that it imposes a legal sentence. One cannot exist without the other. Court cases CANNOT be based off of pure feelings and "morals" because everyone's morals vary - the only thing that should be used to impose a criminal punishment is logic. It often does not happen that way, but that's the principle that should be abided by, and often isn't, both by the court system and the people I'm complaining about on the Internet.

What would happen if court cases were based off of what the people decide is moral? Maybe rapists and murders wouldn't get away as easily, that's certainly true. But women might be punished for having abortions. Gay people and lesbians might be punished for their relationships. Innocent people would be sentenced, much more often, for crimes they didn't commit.

The court system isn't perfect, I never said that. But on the other hand, I think that analyzing court cases based off of who you think is guilty is completely illogical and outright damaging. A crowd of unorganized, uninformed people, screaming for people to be punished for things they know nothing about? WAY worse than our current system.

Re: Trial by internet.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're missing my point here. What I'm saying is that there are three distinct things we're talking about here, and they have to be treated as distinct.

First, we have the court system as it actually exists. Second, we have the court system as we might think it ought to exist - the idealized notion of a court system. Third, we have our own judgments about fact and morals.

I'm not saying that we should use the standards of judgment that we use morally in the actual course system. I accept that there's a fundamental distinction there. So I'm not trying to say that feeling should be valid in law.

What I am saying is that neither should it be the case that our own personal judgments have to be limited by the legal standards of the court system. A court has certain standards for evidence specific definitions of guilt and innocence, etc - and those are not particularly relevant standards for our own moral judgments. In other words, it is perfectly valid for someone to think that someone who was found innocent in a court of law is morally faulty, or to draw conclusions about evidence different than those that apply in a court of law.

So to sum up here. What I'm saying is not that our personal judgment should overwrite the legal system (although there are cases where the legal system is indeed faulty). It's that our own personal standards of belief and of moral judgment are and ought to be distinct from legal processes. And that, therefore, it is valid for popular discussions and arguments over legal things to depart from the standards that apply to legal things.

Re: Trial by internet.

[(Anonymous)]

Except that sometimes even a layperson who hasn't heard the entire case can see patterns that defy logic and deserve to be questioned--e.g., a judge finds reasons to ignore sentencing precedents in order to go easy on clean-cut athletes from his alma mater.