Reply to post: Re: Buttle/Tuttle

Comms-slurping public bodies in UK need crash course in copy 'n' paste

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Buttle/Tuttle

It used to be that it was considered more important that the innocent were not convicted than the guilty were, but for certain offences that appears to have been reversed. Unfortunately we seem unable to accept that in an imperfect world if every clever, articulate and devious criminal is to be convicted then it is inevitable that we will also convict a lot of innocent people who are less articulate, and who never for a moment dreamed they would ever have to prove their innocence. I would be interested to hear one of the activists campaigning for increased conviction rates say that they accept a lot of innocent people will be convicted and maybe even volunteering to be one of them.

Its even worse with children of course. If we ensure that no child is ever harmed by a parent by taking them into care when there's even the slightest of concerns about the parents then we will inevitably take into care a lot of kids with perfectly adequate parents, and the children will then have far worse outcomes (to use the buzz word) than they would have had otherwise. How many children's lives is it acceptable to destroy to save the lives of others? I don't pretend there are easy answers, but it would be enormously helpful if the various activists didn't pretend there were, and that somehow some bit of government legislation or some extra grants would magically make for a perfect world.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022