Rykk wrote:

> Guilt isn't different based on background checks or direct witness or
> experience.

You're right. Guilt is based on whether they did it or not.

> But the State is only empowered to punish provable guilt in the US.

Which is why they need to be empowered to find that proof where it exists. In
the best case, crime would even be prevented.

> Also, our constitution guarantees presumed innocence until guilt is proven.

If we were allowed to know the truth, innocent people wouldn't need to be
accused.

> Without presumed innocence a country can degrade to the point where being
> accused of committing a crime is as bad as being convicted.

And without being empowered to know the truth, we can be swayed by persuasive
or sincere, yet incorrect arguments to punish innocent people, or to let the
guilty free, or perhaps the truth will never be known.

> I.e.  if you are accused you are convicted.  I hear it is like this in Japan,
> but that is just hearsay.

Depending on the offense, such as feeling up women on the train, that is
effectively the case.

> I haven't actually read anything authoritive on the subject.  But any country
> that convicts a very high percentage of those brought to trial

A perusal of the summary of the White Paper on Crime (1997? because the site is
years behind in English) once showed me that the conviction rate was over
99.9%.

It also showed me how relatively VERY few cases ever made it to trial.

> certainly deserves a closer look.

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I
can shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"