We used to have a process that allowed the state to determine whether or not someone had committed a crime. If I remember correctly, the process relied on the state filing formal charges, and presenting evidence to support those charges in an open court. Both the state and the accused party could question witnesses to elicit testimony, a…
We used to have a process that allowed the state to determine whether or not someone had committed a crime. If I remember correctly, the process relied on the state filing formal charges, and presenting evidence to support those charges in an open court. Both the state and the accused party could question witnesses to elicit testimony, and cross-examine the witnesses presented by the other party. A panel of citizens would review the evidence and determine whether or not the accused had been proven guilty.
If we allow the state to discard that process for people we don't like, we should not be surprised to find the process no longer applies to us.
We used to have a process that allowed the state to determine whether or not someone had committed a crime. If I remember correctly, the process relied on the state filing formal charges, and presenting evidence to support those charges in an open court. Both the state and the accused party could question witnesses to elicit testimony, and cross-examine the witnesses presented by the other party. A panel of citizens would review the evidence and determine whether or not the accused had been proven guilty.
If we allow the state to discard that process for people we don't like, we should not be surprised to find the process no longer applies to us.