Very thought provoking thoughts from all of you so far! I hope as Happy Man pointed out that we can seriously discuss this matter, because striking a balance is a life or death matter for so many innocent young people and even older ones.
However, we also need to come to terms with reality. In protecting children who are truly abused we run the risk of incarcerating innocent adults who are falsely accused. Suppose that stopping situations where adults are falsely accused were to result in the tradeoff of allowing more real abusers off the hook?
Is it better to let real abusers and rapists go free in order to avoid any possibility of false accusations against innocent adults?
Although I personally appreciate why the solution was offered to let the guilty go if it means protecting that 1-percent of innocent persons, is this a realistic solution?
Suppose everyone knows that so-and-so is guilty of raping a child, but there's a 1-percent possibility they have the wrong perpetrator? Should they let him/her go knowing that there's a 99-percent chance they are turning a monster loose to terrorize more innocent children?
I believe there are two options to take:
(1) Guilty until proven innocent;
or
(2) Innocent until proven guilty.
I believe the (2) option is the cornerstone of a free democratic society. Unfortunately the price we pay for this freedom is that a monster who rapes children might go free because he/she is "innocent until proven guilty" -- and in some situations it's impossible to prove absolute guilt!
I believe the (1) option is the basis for a socialistic and communistic society. The benefits we receive for sacrificing our freedom is that a monster who rapes children is executed as part of a group of "likely guilty" people who are placed under arrest. However, in reading that last sentence I have to wonder, is this true? If I'm willing to pay the ultimate price -- my very freedom -- to protect innocent children, will I at the very least get my money's worth so to speak? If I'm going to pay such a high price, I expect a lot. The trouble is that I'm not at all convinced that sacrificing freedom for (1) option above will automatically mean that all children throughout the world are now safe from harm!
Pragmatically speaking, then, if I'm not guaranteed that giving up my freedom by having a legal system where one is "guilty until proven innocent" will achieve the high-priced but worthy result of ALL or EVEN MOST children living more securely than they are in a democracy, then why pay the price? This is such a high price, keep in mind, that once it is payed YOU CAN NEVER CHANGE YOUR MIND LATER.
Consider that communistic governments are run by those who love power over others' lives. Once a communistic government replaces the U.S. Constitution, there is a "no refund" policy. What that means is, once you "buy" whatever protections you were told will occur by giving up precious freedom, you cannot get a refund if the government rineges on its promises. You're simply out of luck. It's like buying a used car with a posted warning "no refunds, exchanges or returns!" where you are also told by the salesman, "I promise you this car will run." If the car breaks down as it rolls off the lot, you cannot null and void the non-return policy by claiming misrepresentation! In the same manner, there is no turning back when you give up freedom and allow the U.S. Constitution to be replaced by a more pragmatic constitution that goes after anyone who appears guilty to ensure that the real guilty party is eliminated. If this looks good on paper, but doesn't really work in practice, you cannot tell the new communistic regime at the nation's capital "we've decided to reinstate the U.S. Constitution and treat all people as innocent until proven guilty; because the other way sounded good but didn't work." The dictator of the moment will laugh at such protests. Then they will likely execute you along with everyone who is accused of child molestation, when the criteria of the arrests was something like "there's a child molester in that school, so we want you to arrest all the teachers and faculty and execute them to make absolutely sure we got the perpetrator!"
Amazingly this solution might work, because if youknow there's a child molester at a school who's on the faculty, and you execute all the faculty members, you will absolutely execute the child molester! The parents of the children protected from the monster executed might reason that the other faculty members would gladly have given their lives voluntarily to put this monster out of commission for good! The truth is that those faculty members might have very well felt that strongly. However, the question is, even if more children live securely under such a dictatorship, are the lives of those children enhanced under the rule of oppression?
Is it not like telling a parent that if they agree to lock your child in a solitary cell for their entire youth, their safety is GUARANTEED. Hopefully the parent will not forget there are other factors to the quality of a child's life besides pure security. In a democracy it is inevitable that a percentage of innocent people -- from little lambs to old adults who have contributed richly to the quality of civilized life through various professions -- will get "sacrificed" because we cannot always imprison or execute someone we absolutely know is guilty. Why? Because on occasion there are "technicalities" or loopholes in the laws that we cannot dispense with in order to preserve our fragile freedoms.
Those who believe I'm one of those people who pray for criminals on death row or believe in early releases for "repentant" child rapists should know a few things about me in this regard. First off, those who commit terrible crimes should be executed and their cremated ashes flushed down the prison toilet, IMO; I have absolutely no mercy for them and I frankly I don't pray for their souls. If God wants to forgive them so be it. Secondly, I think the crime of child rape should be execution, and other acts of molestation should be either execution or life in prison without the possibility of parole based on which of these two choices the court decides. I just wanted to make this clear to emphasize that no matter how strong are my personal feelings, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" should remain at all costs, AT ALL COSTS, because of the human atrocities in countries that believe we are guilty until provent innocent.
I hope Silentlambs is reading this, understands where I'm coming from, and comments.
Derrick
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
-- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)
