[rvnx]

Shouldn't it be the exact opposite here ? The burden of proof is the other way around.

The big claim is here: the state has grandiose claims that the overwhelming majority is fair, but there is no proof of it.

Therefore the state should prove that more than 90% of the cases are legitimate, fair, not coerced, and not motivated by the pressure to interrupt the proceedings.

97% of people choose plea deals or out-of-court settlement, it is a huge amount.

It means that in real practice, not imaginary internet, people who face court consider that justice is a big machine that can crush you no matter if you are innocent or not.

In the best case you are acquitted at the end, but you are guaranteed to bear the financial burden, fear and stress as a punishment.

Being held in jail before trial is a very convincing reason to plea deal too.

It's a system engineered to make pleading the only reasonable option, no matter if you did anything or not.

[jasonfarnon]

That is true--the checks and balances the founding fathers fought so hard for were thrown out the window with overlegislation and expansion of prosecutorial discretion in 20th century. To make a convincing argument that "double digits" of cases involve fabricated evidence, you still need to explain why prosecutors would engage in fraud at this massive scale. Just laziness? Collecting scalps? The incentives run that way in some limited cases, e.g., prosecutor up for election, post-reconstruction south. But you need some explanation there.

[inigyou]

They get rewarded based on winning cases?

[jasonfarnon]

Yeah, again, there are some incentives to fabricate evidence like career advancement. Now why should those, on a mass scale, outweigh disincentives like getting caught in an adversarial process and (presumably) some qualm about regularly convicting innocents and regularly letting guilty parties run free in communities. Easy to argue in particular cases but I haven't heard the basis for a trend.

[inigyou]

What adversarial process? If the prosecutor loses the case, the defendant doesn't go to jail but still receives a very big punishment and the prosecutor loses nothing. And prosecutors never prosecute themselves for false prosecution.

[jasonfarnon]

adversarial process = anglo-american trial system = a defendant has an attorney who is looking for prosecutorial misconduct

[jrflowers]

> (presumably) some qualm

This sounds like you’re imagining how prosecutors as a group sort of feel about things, generally, and that this notion you’ve thought of outweighs the demonstrable real-world system where prosecutors are awarded for convictions, full stop.

[jasonfarnon]

I certainly didn't claim " this notion you’ve thought of outweighs the demonstrable real-world system ". However the original comment requires that " " this notion you’ve thought of [doesn't] outweighs the demonstrable real-world system ", and that's what I wanted evidence of. Don't shift the burden of proof onto me.

[CoastalCoder]

> Shouldn't it be the exact opposite here ? The burden of proof is the other way around

That's the rule for criminal court in the US, but each of us is free to pick his own standard for his own purposes.

[cadamsdotcom]

A burden of proof is associated with an individual claim. There’s no “burden of proof in the other direction” - what you’ve actually done is created a second burden of proof and also - worse - attempted to distract from the original point.

It is disingenuous to weasel out of proving one claim by making another, or saying “look over here”

Also, outrageous claims in opposite directions can both be bullshit.

[godwinson__4-8]

On what basis is it an outrageous claim? You think the number is closer to 0? That sounds like a more outrageous claim to me.

[Jensson]

That is like claiming that double digit percentage of software bugs and vulnerabilities were intentionally put there by malicious software engineers. Its outrageous to claim its that high.

Even single digit percent is hard to believe, but its possible, but double digits you are talking China or Russia levels of state corruption and even there I doubt its that high.

[cadamsdotcom]

~~Please point to the place where I said your claim was outrageous.~~

Edit; upon closer examination. I did imply in my last paragraph that your claim was outrageous. Bit of a gaffe considering I’m the agitator here. My apologies.