Well, unless you’re not white. Then the court will be very happy to sentence you based on the witness testimony alone. Self-admission of guilt taken after 14 straight hours of interrogation will also work.
Let’s make this thought experiment. Is someone raped ALL the people beside the judge. But did this all 1-by-1 without witnesses. And they all coming forward. Should the judge sentence him on the “testimony alone”?
It really feels like saying “no” would mean that the system is not working in a big way. Saying “yes” on other means that there is a number of people cumming forward that should be considered a credible evidence., right?
I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue with me or not from the general tone there?
Regardless, as much as it sucks: innocent until proven guilty means proven guilty. Sentencing on accusations alone seems like a really dark path to walk, even when many people are accusing.
That said, the effort put into finding evidence should certainly increase with the number of accusations made, and it’s well established that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in many cases. Many accusations should mean many data points to validate against looking for credible evidence right?
But I’m not arguing “innocent until” part. I’m arguing what constitute “proven guilty”. Is there a number of testimonies that should be counted as proof?
You dogged the theoretical question. Is testimony of 100% people enough? Does at ANY point testimonies become more than "accusation alone?
(btw it’s not “until proven guilty” it’s “until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”.)
Well, unless you’re not white. Then the court will be very happy to sentence you based on the witness testimony alone. Self-admission of guilt taken after 14 straight hours of interrogation will also work.
Yep, all of which is wrong.
Let’s make this thought experiment. Is someone raped ALL the people beside the judge. But did this all 1-by-1 without witnesses. And they all coming forward. Should the judge sentence him on the “testimony alone”?
It really feels like saying “no” would mean that the system is not working in a big way. Saying “yes” on other means that there is a number of people cumming forward that should be considered a credible evidence., right?
I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue with me or not from the general tone there?
Regardless, as much as it sucks: innocent until proven guilty means proven guilty. Sentencing on accusations alone seems like a really dark path to walk, even when many people are accusing.
That said, the effort put into finding evidence should certainly increase with the number of accusations made, and it’s well established that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in many cases. Many accusations should mean many data points to validate against looking for credible evidence right?
But I’m not arguing “innocent until” part. I’m arguing what constitute “proven guilty”. Is there a number of testimonies that should be counted as proof?
You dogged the theoretical question. Is testimony of 100% people enough? Does at ANY point testimonies become more than "accusation alone?
(btw it’s not “until proven guilty” it’s “until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”.)
Then all you’d need is collusion between a sufficient number of people to get someone you don’t like convicted of any crime.
Well, isn’t this always true to the degree?
I didn’t dodge your question, I answered it directly in saying that convicting on accusations alone is a dark path.
There is no number of accusations made that should be considered “proof” of anything.
But, every accusation should be taken seriously and investigated objectively.
(Btw, the salient part of that in relation to this conversation is “proven” not “reasonable doubt”)