Raj Feridun wrote:

> >I'd like to tell them something better than "live with it", "deal with it", "that's reality",
> >or suggest they instead relocate and accuse people of crime in a totalitarian state.
>
> That must be EricWorld where the sun's always shining and the birds
> are always singing

No, that's reality. Only an ass tells victims (or the falsely or mistakenly accused or punished)
to "live with it", "deal with it", "that's reality", or to suggest they move to some country with
a system they'd like better.

> and double-jeopardy doesn't exist because we can
> just continue to retry criminal cases until we get the outcome we
> like.

Not the outcome we "like". Looking for the truth. If more evidence and better methods such as DNA
testing or future revolutions in criminal investigation come out later that can prove what
happened or who is really a criminal or victim.

You still don't get this. There is no purpose in falsely or mistakenly punishing the innocent,
because it means the real criminals get away, and the victims don't get justice. I am not
interested in punishing the people who did not commit crime.

> >[And would certainly never tell them, as past posters have told me, that the escaped criminal
> committing more crime (maybe against the original victims once more, as in domestic violence,
> child molestation, or acquaintance rape) would give law enforcement another chance to punish
> them.]
>
> This is only the truth.

Even if it were the truth, there are better ways to talk to victims or the falsely or mistakenly
accused or punished.

But you don't get that either. Is that how police or friends treated you after your mugging? Why
can't you think of a better way?