Agree

Disagree, only in that small instances of criminals aren't always able to be prosecuted due to certain factors

@Rus-T-Balls I have to disagree on the grounds that it is too often the media condemns an individual only to have the person cleared later. By that point there is no retraction the news can make that would restore the person's public standing.

This is especially visible in the Title IX matters on college campuses. Imagine you're a male having had consensual sex with a woman. She decides the next morning that she's having second thoughts about it, and reports it as a rape case. Not only would this not be a rape, but the male involved would almost immediately be expelled or otherwise forced to leave the school without so much as a cursory investigation. Even if he's exonerated, this incident will follow him through any further schooling he may try to receive.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is so important that it's been enshrined as a core value of our country.

@Tarzankom my disagreement would be in less than 1% of cases I imagine

@Rus-T-Balls I can see your point. In a world where information wasn't nearly as permanent as it is now, the damage would be lessened. If we were still relying on print media and television news as the primary sources of information, then the occasional "accident" could possibly be excused. Unfortunately, with the advent of digital record keeping, it changes the game significantly.

It's VERY rare that I take an absolutist view on something. False/inaccurate, and more importantly premature, accusations happen to be one of those few things.

Based on the 2015 FBI statistics, that 1% would mean:

157 Wrongful Murder Cases
901 Wrongful Rape Cases
3,274 Wrongful Robbery Cases

In total, there would have been 11,907 Wrongful Violent Crime cases. That is almost LITERALLY 10 times the number of people living i my town (1200 people). Let that sink in, and then consider that it was the statistics from 2015 ONLY.

Voltare said, and was later paraphrased by Franklin, "’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent."

Franklin's version was about 50 times more lenient, "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."

Disagree

@Rus-T-Balls It is a statement, NOT a question.

I read it backwards, my bad.

Agree, there isn't evidence of it in 1,000 years

Until about four years ago, I lived down by Detroit. There's a city that many, though not all, are aware of. Dearborn, MI is essentially an Arab enclave. Restaurants are expected to be halal, and most of the smaller businesses have signs in Arabic. To see a hijab or even a burka is the norm.

I've known several people from there that worked outside of Dearborn. They themselves have said that there's little interest in integrating with normal American culture. The only way they've managed to adapt to living in America is through self-segregation.

Agree, I'm not the brightest guy but you're essentially saying that dumb people are too dumb to know they're dumb and will continue to make dumb decisions

@Rus-T-Balls well not exactly more saying we all have at times too much confidence in matters we know too little about to have this confidence. Or in other words, we can often act like experts in subjects we are poorly informed about.

This is true. It's how you recognize it that's the tough part.

disagree

Agree