Bacchus, the analogy with the civil process does not work because the parties have no reason to distrust the court if they are in the right. However, if someone was wrongly accused of a crime, his general distrust to the law enforcement system is very reasonable, I believe. Your argument amounts to the claim that we need laws which make the job of the police easier. I hope, I don't need to explain why I am unsympathetic.
|
American Politics Discussion Thread
|
I don't see how distrust towards the law enforcement system justifies destruction of evidence, nor do I really see why a wrongful accusation is a cause for such a distrust. The justice system exists to hear charges — some of those charges will be found to be without merit, this is entirely normal. The process of bringing charges, and assessing their merit is just what justice is. For justice to have any hope of functioning at all, evidence is required. Preservation of evidence is thus an inescapable requirement of justice, and destruction of it, in itself, regardless of one's guilt, can be quite reasonably be seen as an offense in the same line as perjury, contempt of court, failure to obey a legitimate order, resisting arrest and others are. I am not arguing for those laws, I am saying that dismissing them out of hand as plainly unreasonable is daft. There is some balance to be struck.
You are saying that if you are unfairly accused of a crime then it is your duty to assist the police by preserving the evidence for their use. I reject that, it is the job of the police to gather the evidence. The law should not outsource this job to the people who may rightfully see the police as their enemy.
(April 24th, 2019, 07:57)darrelljs Wrote: To suggest that the accused should determine what evidence, and indeed whether the investigation should proceed, just because they know whether they are innocent is pretty silly. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the investigation, and the outcome has no bearing on whether the investigation itself was proper. It was clearly political and did not pass the sniff test from the start, just like the Kavanaugh clownshow. (April 24th, 2019, 07:27)Gavagai Wrote: So... if the Congress decides not to impeach Trump does it mean that "no obstruction, no collusion, fully exonerated"? If not then how Trump can possibly "exonerate" himself? Why worry? He knew before stepping into the arena that 'trials' by media were going to happen, and incidentally that he's one of the best at countering them. (April 24th, 2019, 09:05)Mardoc Wrote: Personally I think it wasn't a waste - it's made me much more likely to vote Trump in 2020. If this is the worst that can be proven about Trump's team, then he's really quite clean by DC standards - something I would never have believed about a generic New York real estate mogul otherwise. As you say, the main takeaway of the report is for independents, who can see that Trump is clean to a remarkable degree. 
January poll says that 62% of independents say they definitely won't vote for Trump, while 25% say they definitely will. And his general support hasn't gone up since then (especially since the report was released). Of course that may change as the election approaches, but the idea that independents are now going to support him seems delusional
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/57...mp-in-2020 (April 24th, 2019, 11:54)ipecac Wrote:(April 24th, 2019, 07:57)darrelljs Wrote: To suggest that the accused should determine what evidence, and indeed whether the investigation should proceed, just because they know whether they are innocent is pretty silly. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the investigation, and the outcome has no bearing on whether the investigation itself was proper. Interesting opinion. Switching topics slightly, Andrew Yang anyone? This quote in particular was the clearest articulation of the 2016 election I've read: Quote:For Americans who are still trying to figure out why Trump is President, the answer is simple -- we automated away millions of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, and Trump spoke directly to the fear and anger of those voters. He's essentially unelectable, but man I really like him. Darrell  (April 24th, 2019, 12:12)darrelljs Wrote:(April 24th, 2019, 11:54)ipecac Wrote:(April 24th, 2019, 07:57)darrelljs Wrote: To suggest that the accused should determine what evidence, and indeed whether the investigation should proceed, just because they know whether they are innocent is pretty silly. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the investigation, and the outcome has no bearing on whether the investigation itself was proper. Golden showers was bullshit, Hillary needed an excuse to her supporters for looking, Obama knew about alleged interference, but why not try a blatant attempt at delegitimising the election results? Quote:Switching topics slightly, Andrew Yang anyone? This quote in particular was the clearest articulation of the 2016 election I've read: Even I can and have pointed stuff like this out, and I don't claim to be particularly original on such matters. If all he can do is mangle the analysis of the smarter right-wing pundits, well at least he has the intelligence to recognise reality, 'centralise' and not go full left like the crazies. That's a point in his favour. Really, it's not at all bad (relatively) given the main alternative is 'Trump won because Russia and Putin'. |
