• DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.

    I am not convinced that is true but let’s say it is. How much worse would that be, if lawyers were not involved? At least the difference between how convincing an expensive and cheap lawyers are is not really that big. Being convincing is a job requirement. Remove them and you decide guilt in these cases entirely based on how sympathetic and outspoken the accuser and accused are.

    • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You clearly have no idea how harrowing a rape trial is for the victim, how few convictions there are proportionately and how underreported realise crimes are because of how awful and unsuccessful bringing a case to trial is for victims, or you wouldn’t be claiming that bringing that into the principal’s office of your local K12 school and your local college is somehow a good thing.

      • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        You say that as if I want to do it for shits and giggles.

        Yes, I would love for that to be unnecessary. For people to just look at a person and be able to accurately tell if they are guilty or not. That is not the world we live in.

        So in absence of that, I want something to prevent innocent people being punished (to a reasonable degree). Nothing better than a (watered down) trial was invented as far as I know.