• El Barto
    link
    -33
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Regardless on any crime whatsoever? Even murdering 1,000 families?

    Edit: point taken.

    • swiftcasty
      link
      fedilink
      41
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Correct, not even for serial killers. Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. They apprehend suspects, and the courts first prove that the suspect did the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, and then if found guilty the courts decide the punishment which cannot be cruel and unusual and the punishment must fit the crime. For murdering 1k families it would be life in prison or the death sentence.

      When the justice system was founded it was established with a number one priority of protecting the innocent, with a priority of avoiding false convictions. Otherwise, a king with absolute authority could order you to be executed by pouring molten metal down your mouth and on your face for the crime of flipping him the bird. your neighbor accusing you of talking ill of the king even though you never said anything of the sort.

      • El Barto
        link
        117 months ago

        True. Point taken.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        57 months ago

        The standard for criminal trials is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There’s a whole speech in To Kill a Mockingbird about it.

    • @WraithGear
      link
      English
      20
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Its not supposed to be the police that metes out the punishment. They have a historically bad track record on the matter