redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
The simple solution....get rid of this PBJ non sense.
The state can either find your guilty, not guilty, or STET the case...well maybe not STET because that brings up even more complicated issues.
I get the idea that a constitutional right shouldn't be infringed upon based off of finding of anything other then GUILTY. That's a fundamental and literally finding of the law.
I'd argue that based on fundamental interpretations of the law that PBJ's have no business in the court setting. The basic principle of our legal system is to punish those who are found guilty of a crime and to FREE those who can not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime. To tell someone "if you don't mess up again we'll brush this under the rug" doesn't really flow with me. It's abused by the judges, states attorneys, and defense attorneys and I'm assuming whoever wrote it into law didn't really intend for it to be employed the way it currently is.
Why or how we got away from it is beyond me.
Now you are making sense. I think your earlier number of 99% who accept PBJ's are guilty is a stretch. Guilty means found guilty by a Judge or Jury so your number can't possibly be "right" because no judgement has occurred if a PBJ is granted. I agree PBJ is abused to the point of ridiculousness in MD. We don't have enough facts in this case (this thread) to make a blanket judgement of "oh well he should have thought about it when he committed the crime". We have no idea what he did or if he even did anything at all.