• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    They’re saying that they find due process to be lacking and the prosecution to be political.
    Do you think it’s depressing that someone would donate money to the defense of someone they think is being inappropriately prosecuted?
    If you think they’re guilty, you should still want them to get the best defense possible, so that when they’re found guilty it’s airtight. Our justice system is based on an adversarial model. If the prosecution, with the resources of the state, can’t successfully argue that they did it and that their arrest and all procedures were properly followed, do you really want that to still mean someone faces the death penalty?

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Luigi has tons of money, though. He doesn’t need your money, and even if he did your money still isn’t helping anybody.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        What does that have to do with anything?

        Someone with resources gave money to aid the defense of someone they think is being treated unjustly after watching and seeing what they thought was mistreatment.

        Are you just trying to aggravate people, or do you actually have a point?

          • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Do you think I made this donation?

            I replied to someone saying it was sad someone gave money to a murderer.
            I don’t think it’s sad someone gave money to help someone they think might not be a murderer, and even if you think they are one, it’s not sad someone had the impulse to help push back against what they saw as a biased application of the Justice system.

            I understand you think that’s misguided in this case. Do you understand how that’s kind of a nonsequitur?