Re:Sweden's 'Hannibal Lecter' cleared of all charges
by rtkwe on Friday August 02, 2013 @03:11PM
(#6148999)
There's a fine line there to be sure. As a society we'd like to find the true culprit in every crime. Yet we'd also like to allow those caught and truly to be able to confess and save on the resources that requiring a full forensic case as well.
Re:Sweden's 'Hannibal Lecter' cleared of all charges
by eksith on Friday August 02, 2013 @03:27PM
(#6149095)
Then the fine line isn't between confession and evidence, it's between justice and vengeance. We're more "satisfied" when the guilty confess as that alleviates some of the need for vengeance. And we do have a need for it since the desire for revenge is often innate and hard to suppress. But that has (rather shouldn't) have any bearing whatsoever on the truth.
If such is true without evidence, it's a hollow truth and has no place in justice, which is punishment for guilt on the basis of truth.
Re:Sweden's 'Hannibal Lecter' cleared of all charges
by moocowduckquack on Friday August 02, 2013 @04:15PM
(#6149389)
If you are happy to rely on a guilty plea, then the whole thing is ripe for abuse by those with money to just pay/threaten someone to do time for them knowing that the chance of investigation is then minimal. Which happens.
"In 1666, Robert Hubert confessed to starting the Great Fire of London by throwing a fire bomb through a bakery window. It was proven during his trial that he had not been in the country until two days after the start of the fire, he was never at any point near the bakery in question, the bakery did not actually have windows, and he was crippled and unable to throw a bomb. Nevertheless, as a foreigner, a Frenchman, and a Catholic, Hubert was a perfect scapegoat. Ever maintaining his guilt, Hubert was brought to trial, found guilty, and duly executed by hanging."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Voluntary_fals...