Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
it’s much easier to get pictures of a person being killed then rights being violated, especially in a country where those rights are so restricted or functionally non-existent in the first place.
the conviction rate is over 99% in China, for example. Even if you go through “due process” in China, you probably don’t enjoy due process as someone who doesn’t live in China understands it.
Note also that in the U.S., 90%+ conviction rates are common for federal charges. Are U.S. federal courts a sham? If someone actually committed a crime and you put together a ton of evidence very neatly, you can give them all the due process in the world and they would still wind up convicted of that crime.
the 99% conviction rate is a very common statistic provided by the supreme people’s court of China
“This is so common, it’s everywhere, everyone knows it, it’s so easy to find, but I’m going to link to fucking Wikipedia instead so I can use it to launder a number from some bullshit NGO”
“Are U.S. federal courts a sham?”
How bad does your conviction rate need to be for you to accept that a judicial system has fair trials? Do you want police and prosecutors pursuing a bunch of cases they can’t adequately prove?
One of that organization’s source links is dead, the other is here. Haven’t had time to read through it all to see if the claims about conviction rates stand up.
Also ran across this site. Not sure how reliable it is, but it does not appear to be friendly towards the PRC. This part was interesting:
Chinese prosecutors tend to explain low acquittal rates as an indicator of good work. In 2012, a Beijing prosecutor told Legal Daily that a high level of “judicial precision” allowed good prosecutors to “filter out” cases likely to result in acquittal so that the majority of people standing trial were “guilty"…
Local procuratorates followed suit by putting forth “zero acquittals” as the ultimate goal in their annual work reports. Among various performance indicators, the acquittal rate was the most important, legal scholar Yuan Yicheng told Legal Daily in 2012.
Rather than risk acquittal, it is an unspoken rule that prosecutors decide to withdraw indictments.
The approach seems to be to only prosecute cases you’re sure you’ll win. This is largely the approach in the U.S. federal system, and is pretty prevalent among state and local prosecutors, too.
it’s much easier to get pictures of a person being killed then rights being violated, especially in a country where those rights are so restricted or functionally non-existent in the first place.
the conviction rate is over 99% in China, for example. Even if you go through “due process” in China, you probably don’t enjoy due process as someone who doesn’t live in China understands it.
Let’s start with a source on this one.
Note also that in the U.S., 90%+ conviction rates are common for federal charges. Are U.S. federal courts a sham? If someone actually committed a crime and you put together a ton of evidence very neatly, you can give them all the due process in the world and they would still wind up convicted of that crime.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
I just linked the first source, but the 99% conviction rate is a very common statistic provided by the supreme people’s court of China.
1.2 million tried, 1039 found not guilty according to the court.
“Are U.S. federal courts a sham?”
Yes. pretty clearly. in many senses of the word “sham”.
“This is so common, it’s everywhere, everyone knows it, it’s so easy to find, but I’m going to link to fucking Wikipedia instead so I can use it to launder a number from some bullshit NGO”
How bad does your conviction rate need to be for you to accept that a judicial system has fair trials? Do you want police and prosecutors pursuing a bunch of cases they can’t adequately prove?
fair trials are not simply about the conviction rate, they are about the rights of the citizens holding up under the oppression of the court.
Then why are you citing (alleging, really, without a citation) conviction rates in China as evidence that their judicial system isn’t fair?
because the conviction rate in China is pretty good. evidence that their judicial system isn’t fair.
Why do you keep making comments when you know almost nothing about the topic and clearly haven’t thought any of this through?
people keep asking me questions about a topic I’m familiar with, so I keep answering them.
So your source is a Wikipedia article that cites “Safeguard Defenders”, a western anti-china NGO?
One of that organization’s source links is dead, the other is here. Haven’t had time to read through it all to see if the claims about conviction rates stand up.
Also ran across this site. Not sure how reliable it is, but it does not appear to be friendly towards the PRC. This part was interesting:
The approach seems to be to only prosecute cases you’re sure you’ll win. This is largely the approach in the U.S. federal system, and is pretty prevalent among state and local prosecutors, too.
Source?
The supreme People’s Court of China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
That’s a Wikipedia article that cites a western anti-china NGO. Please don’t lie about your sources.
there’s no need for you to lie about these sources, they’re very straightforward and publicly available.
Correct, which is why I don’t lie about them. I would encourage you to stop lying about them to.
I haven’t yet and I’m not going to start lying about any of these sources.
You lied immediately prior to this, as I pointed out.
since I haven’t lied, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
It’s much easier to make shit up than provide actual evidence, as you clearly already know