Okay, so I was assigned Frankenstein for my lit class and there was a very attention grabbing bit (as it seemed to me) concerning crime:
The judges (this took place during the late 1700s) would rather let 10 innocents suffer than let one criminal get away.
Of course, in these days, the politcally correct statement is the reverse. Let 10 criminals get away to avoid convicting one innocent person. But is that actually smart? The proportion of hardened criminals to innocent civilians is far less than 1 to 10. From a purely logical point, it doesn't make sense to let 10 criminals go to save 1 innocent person.
So...why is it more important, in rhetoric, to let 10 criminals go to save 1 innocent? And in reality, why do we have to have such a complex legal system that offers an almost endless series of appeals that can absolve a person based on a mistrial, and not on the crime itself? Don't like your ruling? Appeal it! You can literally do this all the way to a Federal District court and if there's at least one considerate judge, then you can make it up to the Circuit courts (right below the Supreme Court) until they finally deny you. The process takes years and consumes so much money that it's incredible that with such an advanced forensics program that we allow it to continue to this point. Because appeals don't absolve on the basis of the crime itself, it happens on an mistrial.
Do we still need such a complex and winding system? Is it really protecting the innocent now rather than just the rich, determined, and famous?
RAHHH!!! BUFF SKULKS!