[ 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)]

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.