andrel wrote:
> On 24-3-2009 22:33, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> So the people not getting to jail are IYO predominantly for more 
>>> serious crimes? Like fraud and organized crime in stead of drugs and 
>>> shoplifting?
>>
>> I haven't any idea what the ration between "serious" and "minor" crime 
>> conviction rates are (and how would you be able to give a realistic 
>> assessment of that?), but I don't think that's the implication here. 
>> We lock up too many people because too many people are guilty, not 
>> because there's too many innocent people being locked up.
> 
> Chambers claimed that too many guilty people were not convicted *and* 
> that most of the convicted people were there for petty offences, hence 
> my question.

I understand that. I don't think the second half of what he said logically 
follows from the first half or vice versa. Rephrasing my comment, I don't 
know what the ratio of guilty-to-convicted is for various types of crimes,
and I can't imagine how you'd even measure that, given that you don't know 
how many people are actually guilty. I don't think we lock up a whole lot of 
people who are innocent of petty offenses, and I don't think either of us 
meant to imply we thought that was the case.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message