PPEcel
cope and seethe
-
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
- Posts
- 29,096
Every so often there is a news story about someone who is acquitted, or has his or her convictions vacated, or is otherwise not punished to the degree that the public wants. Inevitably, some normalfag will say "they got off on a technicality/loophole, wtf is wrong with our system?"
I don't think most normalfags understand what a "technicality" or a "loophole" is. It's not a case of "well, the clerk forgot to put a comma on the first sentence on page 33 of Form D304, we gotta let this mass shooter go." More often than not, it's a case of "well, everyone assumes you're guilty, we thought we'd get away with violating your civil liberties".
Point: fundamental rights are not technicalities or loopholes. They are fundamental rights.
If a paedophile has his child pornography charges dismissed because a search warrant was improperly issued and the evidence from that warrant was suppressed, he did not "get off on a technicality". He "got off" because his right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.
If a rapist is released from prison because he was unfairly compelled to testify against himself, he did not "get off on a technicality". He "got off" because his right against self-incrimination was violated.
If a terrorist has his death sentence vacated because jury selection was flawed, he did not "get off on a technicality". He "got off" because his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was violated.
I hear many laypeople use the word "technicality" in these scenarios as if there is something sleazy or corrupt about "the system" when a criminal defendant prevails on procedural grounds. I highly disagree. Due process and the rule of law are strengths, not flaws, in any modern criminal justice system. When someone's rights are violated by the state, it is appropriate that such a violation is remedied, whether it be by excluding evidence, dismissing their charges, vacating their convictions or sentences, et cetera.
Normies might feel that it is innately wrong for paedophiles, rapists, and terrorists to escape punishment. Maybe. But it would be just as wrong, if not more, to not hold prosecutors and the police accountable for their actions. It would be wrong for a court to accept the confession of a person who had it beaten out of him by the police. Or for a court to consider it fair for a black man who allegedly raped a white woman to be tried by an all-white jury. Or for a court to not scrutinize evidence submitted by a lab technician whose office had a history of falsifying evidence. Somehow these are scenarios that socially privileged Chads and Stacies are comfortable with.
See, people are naturally predisposed to make snap judgments of others; see the Halo effect. Normies subconsciously and rapidly determine other individuals' moral qualities (and consequently their trustworthiness, their rehabilitative prospects, et cetera) based on nothing more than preconceived biases and physical appearance. And consequently, as a socially unprivileged nonwhite incel, I appreciate the procedural safeguards afforded to criminal defendants in most liberal democracies. I like the presumption of innocence. I like the right to a fair trial. Due process protects us from the ochlocracy of the normies.
I don't think most normalfags understand what a "technicality" or a "loophole" is. It's not a case of "well, the clerk forgot to put a comma on the first sentence on page 33 of Form D304, we gotta let this mass shooter go." More often than not, it's a case of "well, everyone assumes you're guilty, we thought we'd get away with violating your civil liberties".
Point: fundamental rights are not technicalities or loopholes. They are fundamental rights.
If a paedophile has his child pornography charges dismissed because a search warrant was improperly issued and the evidence from that warrant was suppressed, he did not "get off on a technicality". He "got off" because his right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.
If a rapist is released from prison because he was unfairly compelled to testify against himself, he did not "get off on a technicality". He "got off" because his right against self-incrimination was violated.
If a terrorist has his death sentence vacated because jury selection was flawed, he did not "get off on a technicality". He "got off" because his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was violated.
I hear many laypeople use the word "technicality" in these scenarios as if there is something sleazy or corrupt about "the system" when a criminal defendant prevails on procedural grounds. I highly disagree. Due process and the rule of law are strengths, not flaws, in any modern criminal justice system. When someone's rights are violated by the state, it is appropriate that such a violation is remedied, whether it be by excluding evidence, dismissing their charges, vacating their convictions or sentences, et cetera.
Normies might feel that it is innately wrong for paedophiles, rapists, and terrorists to escape punishment. Maybe. But it would be just as wrong, if not more, to not hold prosecutors and the police accountable for their actions. It would be wrong for a court to accept the confession of a person who had it beaten out of him by the police. Or for a court to consider it fair for a black man who allegedly raped a white woman to be tried by an all-white jury. Or for a court to not scrutinize evidence submitted by a lab technician whose office had a history of falsifying evidence. Somehow these are scenarios that socially privileged Chads and Stacies are comfortable with.
See, people are naturally predisposed to make snap judgments of others; see the Halo effect. Normies subconsciously and rapidly determine other individuals' moral qualities (and consequently their trustworthiness, their rehabilitative prospects, et cetera) based on nothing more than preconceived biases and physical appearance. And consequently, as a socially unprivileged nonwhite incel, I appreciate the procedural safeguards afforded to criminal defendants in most liberal democracies. I like the presumption of innocence. I like the right to a fair trial. Due process protects us from the ochlocracy of the normies.
Last edited: