Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill Incel trait: you believe it is based for criminals to "get off on a technicality"

.


  • Total voters
    14
PPEcel

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.
 
Last edited:
it is what it is (kys nigger)
 
Lifefuel for whites, not based if a niggo gets off.
 
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?"
Yeah the "wtf is wrong with our system?" is so typical of what users on reddit say when demanding mob justice for sexual crimes while pretending that they are merely seeking proper punishment.
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.
They don't always get off on a technicality even in those situations though because law enforcement charges them with multiple charges so that at least one charge sticks.
 
iu


Yes, Cameron Herrin was innocent, so was Jeremy Meeks :soy:
 
The system is most certainly sleazy and corrupt, but not for this reason. Your ability to get away with crime is usually decided by the amount of money in your bank account/portfolio. Foids and attractive men also tend to get much lower sentences on average.
 
Lifefuel for whites, not based if a niggo gets off.
What’s with the racism? It should be unattractive criminals getting off and making sure the good looking ones are locked away
 
iu


Yes, Cameron Herrin was innocent, so was Jeremy Meeks :soy:
Herrin was actually an example of a based judge applying the law fairly. Of course, being a Chad, foids thought it was unjust.

24 years was well within Florida's sentencing guidelines for killing two people in a vehicular homicide whilst driving in an extremely reckless manner

Personally I think downward departures are justified for young defendants, but 24 years in prison (while on the high end) is not disproportionate.
 
Last edited:
Herrin was actually an example of a based judge applying the law fairly. Of course, being a Chad, foids thought it was unjust.

24 years was well within Florida's sentencing guidelines for killing two people in a vehicular homicide whilst driving in an extremely reckless manner

Personally I think downward departures are justified for young defendants, but 24 years in prison (while on the high end) is not disproportionate.
If they found a loophole would you support him then?

The only time I support people like this is when it was justified, like OJ simpson
 
Lifefuel for whites, not based if a niggo gets off.
Pill Cosby would like a word with you.
Yeah the "wtf is wrong with our system?" is so typical of what users on reddit say when demanding mob justice for sexual crimes while pretending that they are merely seeking proper punishment.

They don't always get off on a technicality even in those situations though because law enforcement charges them with multiple charges so that at least one charge sticks.
Bro, why’re you ignoring me?
 
What about the violation of the rights of the supposed privileged people? Why should the remedy be such that the unprivileged are entirely absolved of their wrong doing? If they are totally let off over minor procedural things, doesn't justice go unpursued? The broader picture here should be to administer justice with rationality, ethics and fairness in spite of whatever hindrance has been caused by minor procedural "errors". Why should having privilege (which is something out of a person's control) put someone at a disadvantage or rather at the mercy of minor technicalities? Your leftist argument is utterly bullshit.

I agree. Legal administrators should be held accountable, and even the laws should undergo minor tweaks if necessary, but the broader goal of ensuring justice cannot be compromised by technicalities or notions of privilege or power dynamics.

It would be wrong if people were forced to confess something they didn't do just because they wanted to make the torture stop. Otherwise, all else is fair game, at least in my book.

That wouldn't necessarily be unfair. There would be a probability of unfairness, but not for sure.

Lastly, your poll is pretty bogus. This has nothing to do with being incel or fakecel. You can side with privileged people if they are in the right even as an incel if you're rational and fair enough; to not be able to do so is a sign that you're unfairly biased in favor of the unprivileged.
You have completely missed my point, you're interpreting this as a "leftist" "power dynamics" argument, when this is a perfectly reasonable civil libertarian stance. Nowhere did I suggest the good-looking are undeserving of civil liberties. All I did suggest is that witch-hunts (as can be seen on social media) disadvantage the ugly and the poor more than anyone else, and hence incels such as ourselves have more to gain from procedural rules and due process more than most demographics.

Justice with "rationality, ethics, and fairness" (whatever that means, JFL) would suggest that the institutions of the state be subject to the constraints of the law as much as individual citizens are. What does a "technicality" even mean?

Lastly, my poll weeds out those who unreasonably side with normalfags even though it is evidently clear their claims have no logical grounds to stand on.
 
Lifefuel for whites, not based if a niggo gets off.
OJ Simpson murdered the cumskin whore he used to be with and that kike Chad that cucked him, and that was gigabased of him that he got away kek.
 
I don't support it. if a person was convicted to begin with, the prosecutors likely had very hard evidence so even if they broke procedure and caused a technicality issue. The criminal should remain punished.
 
I don't support it. if a person was convicted to begin with, the prosecutors likely had very hard evidence so even if they broke procedure and caused a technicality issue. The criminal should remain punished.
What would be the exact "technicality"?

If they found a loophole would you support him then?
What would be the exact "loophole"?

The only time I support people like this is when it was justified, like OJ simpson
OJ Simpson murdered the cumskin whore he used to be with and that kike Chad that cucked him, and that was gigabased of him that he got away kek.
OJ Simpson? That wasn't even a "technicality", the prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury acquitted him. It's that simple.
 
OJ Simpson murdered the cumskin whore he used to be with and that kike Chad that cucked him, and that was gigabased of him that he got away kek.
the juice is kinda based ngl :smonk:
 
What would be the exact "technicality"?


What would be the exact "loophole"?



OJ Simpson? That wasn't even a "technicality", the prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury acquitted him. It's that simple.
idk and Am too lazy to research technicalities. but basically I am of the opinion that rightful Justice even if administered without proper procedure is perfectly fine.

ofc this is pretty horrible, in that it could set bad precedent but whatever
 
And what I'm saying is that its not reasonable or moral for people to escape the justice they have coming through the underhanded usage of procedural rules. The bigger picture is about delivering justice to those that have been wronged; nothing should get in the way of that.
Ah yes, following the rules (i.e. the law) is "underhanded". "Delivering justice to those that have been wronged" would include defendants who didn't receive a fair trial and had their rights violated.

Your "libertarian" (actually woke) stance is completely retarded because you seek to benefit your so called "disadvantaged" demographics with underhanded means like violations of procedural rules.
Due process benefits everyone. In the context of inceldom, I'm simply pointing out why incels have a bigger stake than anyone else.

Yeah I know you know wouldn't get it because your brand of justice is all about benefiting the disadvantaged just because they are disadvantaged. Well newsflash! Life isn't fair! Nobody is owed anything. Nobody should be coddled. If anything, the lives of the privleged deserve protection because across generations, their genes have proven to be successful while those of the disadvantaged have not. Bloodlines need to be improved and purified.
Very funny straw man. Completely irrelevant side rant.

I agree, but that kind of accountability shouldn't mean that criminals from disadvantaged groups can make escapes from the law because that would be a failure of justice.
Another funny straw man.

Shut your mouth cunt!
I wonder why you argue like a femoid. I mean, your views comport with one.
 
Only when the crime is against those I hate. I don’t want a soy murdering an incel getting released
 
What would be the exact "loophole"?
Hypothetically let's say that the people in his corner concoct a story about him never being there in the first place, there are no camera's, and he doesn't leave any fingerprints, apart from that everything points towards him.

As usual the foids and cucks start a petition to let him go free because he dindu nothin wrong, and manages to get off because there wasn't enough evidence.

Would you still support his case knowing deep down that he was guilty?, or would you be pissed that he got off due to his looks?.
 
idk and Am too lazy to research technicalities. but basically I am of the opinion that rightful Justice even if administered without proper procedure is perfectly fine.

ofc this is pretty horrible, in that it could set bad precedent but whatever

What even is "rightful justice"?

OK, I'll give a few examples of things that you might consider a "technicality".

An autistic teenager gets told, while being interrogated without the presence of his parents or a lawyer, that he would get tortured by the police if he didn't confess. He confesses. In court, the prosecutor says, "he confessed!"

A person is accused of murder and ordered to submit to DNA testing. A lab technician strikes a deal with a prosecutor to "obtain" the "desired" DNA test results in exchange for a small financial bonus. The test results are a match with the murderer's DNA.

An ethnic is on trial. The prosecutor uses all of her peremptory challenges against nonwhite potential jurors.
 
Do you realize that you're advocating for the weakening of the justice system by letting defendants walk free by taking advantage of technicalities just so that your precious disadvantaged groups can feel stronger and more secure? The question here is, in the pursuit of justice, who was wrong more? Was it defendant when he or she committed the crime, or was it the state when its officials and employees bent some minor rules in ways which didn't result in wrongful trail or imprisonment of the defendant? Its all highly contextual but my money is on the defendant.

Not this one. You literally mentioned in your OP that its ok with you if criminal pedophiles are well within their right to get off on technicalities. Here you go:

^ This misusage of the defendant's personal rights is literally staging an escape from justice and you're in favor of that.

It is a side rant but it is relevant because your thought process reveals that you're somewhat woke and that you are in favor of having a leg up on those who you perceive as privileged, while I am the opposite.
Fuck the law, fuck the government and fuck bureaucracy tbh. Humans are savage creatures anyways, there's no such thing as right or wrong. It's only a matter of defending ourselves, our resources, and our chances of survival and reproduction.
 
What even is "rightful justice"?

OK, I'll give a few examples of things that you might consider a "technicality".

An autistic teenager gets told, while being interrogated without the presence of his parents or a lawyer, that he would get tortured by the police if he didn't confess. He confesses. In court, the prosecutor says, "he confessed!"

A person is accused of murder and ordered to submit to DNA testing. A lab technician strikes a deal with a prosecutor to "obtain" the "desired" DNA test results in exchange for a small financial bonus. The test results are a match with the murderer's DNA.

An ethnic is on trial. The prosecutor uses all of her peremptory challenges against nonwhite potential jurors.
alright for those technicalities yes they shouldn't be allowed. I would probably not care about technicalities on a case by case basis.
 
Do you realize that you're advocating for the weakening of the justice system by letting defendants walk free by taking advantage of technicalities just so that your precious disadvantaged groups can feel stronger and more secure? The question here is, in the pursuit of justice, who was wrong more? Was it defendant when he or she committed the crime, or was it the state when its officials and employees bent some minor rules in ways which didn't result in wrongful trail or imprisonment of the defendant? Its all highly contextual but my money is on the defendant.
Again, what exactly is a "technicality"? Can you point to the exact law(s) you think are "technicalities" and "minor rules"? What is "the pursuit of justice"?

Not this one. You literally mentioned in your OP that its ok with you that criminal pedophiles are well within their right to get off on technicalities. You have no care for the children being harmed by the actions of this pedo. Here you go:

^ This misusage of the defendant's personal rights is literally staging an escape from justice and you're in favor of that.
"Misusage"

Sweaty, if the state obtained the evidence without violating the defendant's rights, there wouldn't be a due process issue would there?

I described it as a straw man because you seem irrationally focused on the "privilege" narrative after I've explained that civil liberties and due process applies to everyone.

It is a side rant but it is relevant because your thought process reveals that you're somewhat woke and that you are in favor of having a leg up on those who you perceive as privileged, while I am the opposite.
"somewhat woke"

I'm dying :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:

Yes. The SJWs insist that foids should be automatically believed. I'm the one who believes that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But I'm the "woke" person in this argument, whilst you go on and on asking "WhAt AboUT tHe CHilDrEn?" in the tone of a suburban cumskin Karen.
 
Hypothetically let's say that the people in his corner concoct a story about him never being there in the first place, there are no camera's, and he doesn't leave any fingerprints, apart from that everything points towards him.

As usual the foids and cucks start a petition to let him go free because he dindu nothin wrong, and manages to get off because there wasn't enough evidence.

Would you still support his case knowing deep down that he was guilty?, or would you be pissed that he got off due to his looks?.
If there are no cameras, no witnesses, no fingerprints, what would point toward him? What would let me know deep known he was guilty?

The court should simply disregard any such petition, not allow it to be entered into the record, and instruct (and possibly sequester) the jury from any media attention of the case.

I'd be pissed if someone who I considered "obviously guilty" got off -- but not at the procedures, but at the prosecutors who fucked up a supposedly airtight case.
 
Was it defendant when he or she committed the crime, or was it the state when its officials and employees bent some minor rules in ways which didn't result in wrongful trail or imprisonment of the defendant? Its all highly contextual but my money is on the defendant..

Why cant the officials gather evidence without "bending some minor rules"? If rules are minor, then the appropiate remedy will be issued.

Trials are thrown out not over "minor rules" but over fundamental human rights. Furthermore, the defendant is not outright put on the street, an appropiate remedy is issued which can result in the defendant being put on the street. For example if an officer breaks into your home or hacks your computer to get evidence, you are not going to be freed. Simply the evidence obtained by the illegal actions of the officer will be discarded at the trial. It is up to the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. If said evidence puts you back in the street it is not the fault of the justice system, it is the fault of the official. Why couldnt the official lawfully get the evidence? There are good reasons for that evidence to be excluded, an officer that is so bent on destroying you as to break the law, is an officer that can plant evidence. After all, who got the evidence? The officer, without a warrant or proper handling, which means the evidence to convict you was in the sole hands of the officer that hates you enough to break the law. Why should this evidence be trusted? Those rules are in place not because their actions are "more wrong" than the defendant, but to tell prosecutors and officers to not even try to violate your rights because if they do their work will go to waste.
 
Why cant the officials gather evidence without "bending some minor rules"? If rules are minor, then the appropiate remedy will be issued.

Trials are thrown out not over "minor rules" but over fundamental human rights. Furthermore, the defendant is not outright put on the street, an appropiate remedy is issued which can result in the defendant being put on the street. For example if an officer breaks into your home or hacks your computer to get evidence, you are not going to be freed. Simply the evidence obtained by the illegal actions of the officer will be discarded at the trial. It is up to the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. If said evidence puts you back in the street it is not the fault of the justice system, it is the fault of the official. Why couldnt the official lawfully get the evidence? There are good reasons for that evidence to be excluded, an officer that is so bent on destroying you as to break the law, is an officer that can plant evidence. After all, who got the evidence? The officer, without a warrant or proper handling, which means the evidence to convict you was in the sole hands of the officer that hates you enough to break the law. Why should this evidence be trusted? Those rules are in place not because their actions are "more wrong" than the defendant, but to tell prosecutors and officers to not even try to violate your rights because if they do their work will go to waste.
This forum is full of fakecel faggots who consider themselves "blackpilled", but are in fact just looking for a place to be edgy whilst retaining their pre-blackpill political philsophy.
 

Similar threads

Friezacel
Replies
32
Views
652
Namtriz912
Namtriz912
Clavicus Vile
Replies
9
Views
334
Murdoch89
M
Squatting Slavcel
Replies
27
Views
392
Bruce_Bonepresser
Bruce_Bonepresser
screwthefbi
Replies
19
Views
461
BELOW_Average_Joe
BELOW_Average_Joe

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top