Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? It seems to boil down to a choice of two options: making people responsible for the use of the equipment they own, or making it effectively impossible to prosecute any pirate who has two brain-cells to rub together. I don't believe anyone is going to do a full forensic examination of a computer that someone thinks may have been used to illegally download a $10 movie onto; it wouldn't be a feasible use of resources for anyone. So we let the pirates get away with it.
|
Perhaps it is the crux of the issue, in a black and white sense, though it's not so cut and dry. But, supposing it were, I would rather make it effectively impossible to prosecute any pirate than make people responsible for the use of the equipment they own. In fact, I would say the second option is ludicrous and that with two such severe options it's ludicrous to propose the second option be chosen. Otherwise, guilt would belong to the possessor of an item which would create a ridiculous, dangerous and scary precedent.
Let me illustrate using your words exactly. Suppose we do make people responsible for the equipment they own. If a person's car is stolen and used in a hit and run, it would be the car owner's responsibility. If someone broke into a house and stole a knife and then used that knife to murder someone, it would be the owner of the knife's responsibility.
In previous posts you've also alluded that you agree with the burden of proof being on the accused, not the prosecutors, since it would be "too expensive" for prosecutors to worry about it. This also strikes me as a ridiculous, dangerous and scary precedent. We are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. So the burden of proof lies with those trying to prove guilt, and if they can't, then yes, it should be impossible to prosecute pirates.
Consider this similar but extreme hypothetical example: Suppose there was a new wave in murders of people sneaking into houses, stealing knives, murdering with them, and then returning them to the house. Say the practice was extremely widespread. Now let's also suppose that, indeed, there was a wave of people using their own knives to murder people as well.
Now, suppose the police and prosecutors had no other evidence to go on, but somehow they could identify the exact knife used in each murder and which house it was located in. Should the burden of responsibility be on the owner of the knife? Since it was their knife, and they didn't guard it well enough, they should be convicted for murder?
Also, should the burden of proof be on the owner of the knife, since the police can prove nothing except that the person owned a knife that was used in a murder? Using this hypothetical example your only options would be to punish all the owners of the knives used to murder, even though many would be innocent, to make sure the guilty are punished, or to let even the guilty go free unless and until better evidence could be found. Which would you choose? I'm actually very interested to hear your choice Harry, if you'll make one and let us know.
As for me, it is better to let the guilty go free than the innocent go punished, if we must choose one. If we focus too much on "getting the bad guys at any cost" at the expense of punishing innocents then we have failed, in my opinion.