I think the point (which bears repeating) is that suspects are not criminals until proven so in a court, and it's important to be careful in our language, especially in our modern times where the court of public opinion operates swiftly and without due process.

Except pretrial detention, which is where bail comes in, is done prior to adjudication (plea bargain, trial, etc.), not after.

As such, the folks we're talking about haven't been convicted of anything. And if, as is supposed to be the case, that one is innocent until proven guilty, you're advocating for innocent people to be punished.

Is that actually your stance on this, or were you not understanding the situation?

There is. They put them in a hotel, under police guard, for the duration of the trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration

Well, not really, that's more about simply being accused not being enough to imprison or hang you.

Not sure how to read that. Is this consistent?

I'm not trying to bait or anything. Judicial institutions aren't about some objective truth somewhere out in the universe. Best case scenario is that their processes provide stability. (The nice, good governance kind of stability, therefore creating legitimacy, being predictable etc.)

I can therefore fully understand the first part. No idea why they chose to return to the question of guilt again later in their comment.

It wouldn't change a thing in the usefulness of their advice.

Some had some kind of process (fairness is, at best, dubious in most cases), but even some of those who were never charged under any system, and have been cleared for transfer or release, remain detained to this day.

Uh, so if someone set fire to a bunch of homes in a neighborhood, and there's video of them doing it, but they did it knowing the homes were empty, they should just be left free until the trial is over? I'm sorry but I feel like a lot of online comments on criminal justice are very shortsighted

That's why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. If you can't get your case together in an X amount of time that is the equivalent of not having a case.

So, given that he wasn't convicted, not guilty. You can't say that he probably was guilty and not say that about every other person that ever got acquitted, which is nonsense. So that claim simply does not hold up.

I agree with you that the law (or rather, justice) isn't correct and that this goes both ways. So if you are already of that opinion then why negate it after that by saying that he probably was guilty?

That's after all what courts are for.

The *principle* is that one is innocent until proven guilty.

The reality is that not every person adheres to that principle in every situation when it comes their own internal judgement of people.

> I'm not interested in weakening this fundamental right to accommodate people who are uncomfortable admitting the fallibility of the police or our justice system.

The problem is that they aren't asking you to accommodate them. They already are there, perfectly accommodated, in the state of prematurely judging people's innocence.

The reality is that any policy has to work by improving this not ideal situation.

Ostensibly the same thing as after a 22 year sentence, just later.

Do I? I'm not saying they're automatically guilty.

Yep. And you can sit in jail for a year or so while they figure that out at your trial. Of course you’ll have lost your job by then. And paid your lawyer a fortune so you’re broke. And your family is kind of screwed up over the whole thing and the hardship it caused.

But you were innocent. And that’s all that mattered.

I don't understand. He served 27 years. You say he should have served up to 15. The difference is 12 years that the justice system has to answer for.

>2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe.

Unless you have something substantive to reference you're just muddying the waters with this statement.

Just in case you missed it, the point here is that if this feels all quite ordinary it means the legal system is biased.

There's no world in which limiting the defense to 1/4 of the time of the offense is fair, and fair is supposed to be the point of a trial.

3-4 months to get a criminal case together, with discovery requirements, etc, seems reasonable.

> No anyone ever hitting 1 year is clear evidence of total failure of the system to even pretend to care about this issue.

I don't agree. Terrible stuff happens occasionally-- it is not evidence that every element of the system is broken everywhere.

IMO the big issue is bail and pre-trial detention. Yes, criminal cases being in limbo is bad (and the constitutional right of speedy trial is important)-- but a lot of the reason why they take longer now than in the 18th century is because of additional protections for defendants.

14 years is a long time really, there are people who get the benefit of a doubt for murder after 14 years.

No actually, let's do pretend this family didn't violate the law here. Let's assume that allegedly means just that. We have this crazy double standard in the US, we want to assume the police are incompetent, but then when they accuse someone we assume they are guilty.

How about we assume this is a competent accusation that may or may not be factual, and leave it to the courts to decide. Whether or not we believe the court system needs reform to make it more affordable/just is a valid point, but let's assume that by reading the Cliff's Notes (press release) of this case we don't know enough to decide guilt.

Edit: Courts should be affordable and just for all. I believe paying more shouldn't get you special treatment and not being able to pay shouldn't get you harsher judgements. The difficulty is in finding that balance.

Edit 2: Well shit I was wrong, I missed the part where they agreed to the charges? Not sure how that works, beyond my limited knowledge on the law, but.... it looks like they plead guilty.

Yes, exactly. I still can't wrap my mind around this.

Yeah, if I were accused of a big crime I would look at it like this: if my faith in the justice system is 99%, and if I'm facing 50 years in jail, then given my innocence I'm facing an expected value of 6 months in jail. You can bet I'd be sweating!