You have presented too much common sense for most of the judges, politicans and lawyers who has been raised in a communist evolutionary educational system!

A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

George

This is a very difficult argument. How to balance the two, jailing the guilty but making sure the innocent go free? Different people have different views as to which side to err on. This writer obviously wants to err on the side of ‘convicting the guilty’ and believes that if the odd innocent person goes to jail, then so be it. Personally I take the opposite view. I never want an innocent to go to jail, so if that means the odd guilty person going free, then to me ‘so be it’.

Our laws are based on the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ which means straight away there is a slight bias towards the accused, as the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But in a free democracy, this concept of innocent until proven guilty must be maintained, lest we become a dictatorship.

Finally, your comments that we should ‘use evidence even if tainted to convict the guilty’, I disagree because if the evidence is tainted, how do you know the person is guilty? That is the whole point of evidence, to help decide innocence or guilt. If you allow ‘tainted’ evidence then you are corrupting the whole process. My summary is that we should not expect perfection in the judicial system, in a world where perfection does not exist. The judicial system is flawed just as the world is flawed. Best is to jail the guilty and let the innocent free. We would all be happy with that. But life is not always that simple, sometimes the courts will get it wrong and innocent people will go to jail and guilty will go free. If forced to err on either side, I would err on the latter simply because a guilty verdict is final and the persons life is ruined if they are innocent. A not guilty verdict is not final, the guilty person still may be caught