53 ms·
Says who? Neither of us saw it, so we can't know. There's a procedure though that we use to determine the likelihood of someone's guilt, based on evidence and
by EdHominem 10y ago
Says who? Neither of us saw it, so we can't know.
There's a procedure though that we use to determine the likelihood of someone's guilt, based on evidence and legal arguments. Would you like to hear about it?
- dllthomas 10y agoI think it's legitimate to say, in a discussion like this one where we're not dealing with punishment, that we should hold to a weaker standard (preponderance of evidence?) than should a criminal court. That said, as far as I'm aware the only evidence we've seen is that he's been accused of the crime. I don't what portion of accusations are false (or even a proxy like conviction rate in comparable situations).
- Freak_NL 10y agoThat might seem reasonable at first glance, but it tends to turn into a witch hunt — especially with modern day communication channels. That is, you are effectively dealing with punishment (by treating a suspect as a criminal and tarnishing their reputation before being convicted) by not applying the same rigour as the courts.
- dllthomas 10y agoI agree that social condemnation - especially mass condemnation - is a form of punishment, and should be treated with corresponding care. But I reject the attempt to extend that to all related reasoning - it is specifically a question of requiring a high confidence for punishment.
- sjy 10y agoThere's a lot more evidence in the government brief, which was linked in the article.
- dllthomas 10y agoFair enough.