is is ok to free a guilty person because they destroyed the evidence ..

[GeorgeGist]

it happens all the time.

[ThomCat]

1. If you know for a fact that they destroyed evidence

and you can prove it was evidence, then you've still got enough evidence to convict. So this is sort of a moot point, isn't it?

[baldguy]

2. Its better to let 100 guilty men go free then to deprive one innocent man of his liberty.

Someone needs a remedial civics lesson.

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. agreed.

[Thothmes]

7. Let me see if I have this right

It is better to let 100 guilty murderers, rapists & child molesters go free than it is to nail the wrong guy for bouncing a check. I can only believe hat you not a DA in some municipal jurisdiction.

[ret5hd]

8. Hey, take it up with the founders of the system.

[baldguy]

9. This is a basic tenet of English Common Law

Which is the basis for the entire American legal system. The concept goes from Voltaire to William Blackstone to Thomas Jefferson to William O. Douglas - and is embodied in the Fourth Fifth and Six Amendments to the Constitution.

Like I said - this is remedial civics.

[Kelly Rupert]

4. If you have evidence they destroyed evidence,

prosecute that.

[dsc]

5. who is they?

If you mean the government, then yes the guilty man should go free. If you mean the guilty man and you can prove the guilty man did destroy the evidence then it is a closer call.

[hang a left]

6. What? Are you a cop with a chip. Or are you just ignorant?

I would prefer that the system of justice we have, prevail.

The chances we take with our system are that the guilty will sometimes walk. However, the innocent will always be exonerated. At least that is the hope of all civilized human beings.