Comment: Before a arbitration company

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks for writing that book for me (see in situ)

Before a arbitration company

Before a arbitration company can render a guilty verdict, overwhelming evidence must be provided. There must be no reasonable doubt of guilt in order to convict. Remember that the accuser faces criminal charges if his accusation proves to be false. He is responsible for paying remuneration to the falsely accused. However, concerning proof; this isn't the dark ages. We no longer rely on 3rd party "witnesses" to convict criminals, or trial by combat or other primitive means of assessing guilt.

The child raper may be free to leave if no one actually caught him in the act, but he isn't going to get far when he is found guilty in short order by an arbitration company who can prove his DNA is all over the victim and can scan his/her brain in order to reconstruct her memory. Who knows what processes would be available and researched by companies whose livelihoods depend on legal perfection. Remember, a single error could result in a company imploding to its competitors. Arbitration companies would be swift by need if they want to please their customers precisely because it would violate the NAP to arrest people before guilt has been proven. Therefore you could expect competitive companies to render verdicts based on conclusive evidence (when it exists) within hours or days.

Unlike governments which are incentivised toward incarceration, arbitration companies are incentivised to deliver 100% just verdicts as quickly as possible. They gain nothing by the guilt or innocence of those accused, and they loose money by dragging out the process. Justice would be swift and sure.