In article <[email hidden]>,
Leo said:Ryan Cousineau said:In fairness to Floyd, he is attempting, with whatever motive, to
fundraise for his rather expensive defence.
This is why I like him less than others. I wonder if other cyclists
have had so expensive lawyers. And I wonder if other cyclists (apart
Tyler?) have created such a massive media campaign - fully knowing
that the counterpart can't object to their claims to the media.
The other riders were guilty. The counterparts get to object in the
hearing, which is all that really matters anyways. No matter how many
"we believe" t-shirts have been sold, you'll notice that Mr. Hamilton
continues to be absent from the ProTour.
Quoted message said:But then I fully recognize my eurocentric prejudice against some
aspects of US society.
The US (and for that matter, most Commonwealth countries) have an
adversarial judicial system as a pretty fundamental element of their
society. Even where it isn't directly involved, it tends to be the
default model for other forms of adjudication.
Here's the deal: despite what most people may think, I doubt the court
of public opinion matters a whole bunch in what is about to come. More
importantly, consider the reputational damage each way: Floyd says this
and Floyd says that, but in the end if the hearing goes against him,
he's busted, the end. If the hearing goes his way, well, then he was
justified in saying all those things.
On the other hand, the prosecutors have already made a public accusation
of the defendant: no matter how little they say from then on, the
implication is that they wouldn't have accused him without
justification. It's decorous for them to say no further, and let the
hearing work.
A similar situation applies to criminal prosecutions: the mere act of
arrest and charge is a huge burden for almost any person, innocent or
guilty. If they are eventually found guilty, then that's part of the
punishment. If not, then you've put that person through the wringer
already, and they've suffered mightily for no reason. At least they were
able to proclaim their innocence
This is why I think it disreputable for police and prosecutors to
publicly discuss cases, but not so for defendants. The reputational
damage that prosecutors (either as a profession or personally) suffer
for a failure to convict is pretty minimal, While a charge alone, even
if later dropped entirely, can continue to define the chargee's public
reputation for the rest of their life.
The one "advantage" to prosecutors and such talking big is that if they
really are riding a bad prosecution over a cliff, the bigger they talk,
the harder they fall (cf. Mr. Ray Nifong, who had to resign his position
mainly because he was an idiot in public).
In Canada, the tradition of cops and Crown prosecutors not talking smack
about the defendant in public is much stronger, and I think justice is
well-served by this tradition.
--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
