3 ms·

>Nearly all developed Western countries have judicial systems that presuppose innocence until proven otherwise in a competent criminal court following establish

by ikeboy 11y ago

>Nearly all developed Western countries have judicial systems that presuppose innocence until proven otherwise in a competent criminal court following established procedures. It seems like your cultural background is very different from that, which is why we're not communicating well. This is a legal presumption of innocence. It doesn't mean the actions are legal. When I say "illegal", I mean "breaks a law". This has nothing to do with cultures as far as I know; I'm an American citizen. Whether you can tell if someone broke the law is a different question. Let me ask you directly: if someone were to rob a bank and never get caught, did they do something illegal? If not, how would you express the claim that they did something against the law?

fredkbloggs 11y ago
> Let me ask you directly: if someone were to rob a bank and never get caught, did they do something illegal? No conviction, no crime. I could, however, state that the bank was most likely robbed based on nothing more than accounting information. There's a crucial difference between stating that something happened and accusing a specific person of a criminal act. > If not, how would you express the claim that they did something against the law? As a witness to an act, I would state the facts as I observed them, without passing judgment myself. This is exactly what's done in court. "At time X I was at location Y, and I saw a person with features Z enter the bank, pass a piece of paper to a teller, and run out of the bank shortly thereafter with what appeared to be cash. I believe that person to be the defendant, who is sitting there (points)." The testimony of non-expert witnesses is limited to facts, not opinions. Because for all I know, the note could have been a valid withdrawal slip, the customer may have been in a hurry, and the money was actually stolen by a teller and an accomplice who used the rushed customer's large withdrawal as a cover (was the customer an accomplice? I don't know!). If I were not a witness, I wouldn't make such a claim in the first place.

by ikeboy 11y ago

fredkbloggs 11y ago

> Let me ask you directly: if someone were to rob a bank and never get caught, did they do something illegal? No conviction, no crime. I could, however, state that the bank was most likely robbed based on nothing more than accounting information. There's a crucial difference between stating that something happened and accusing a specific person of a criminal act. > If not, how would you express the claim that they did something against the law? As a witness to an act, I would state the facts as I observed them, without passing judgment myself. This is exactly what's done in court. "At time X I was at location Y, and I saw a person with features Z enter the bank, pass a piece of paper to a teller, and run out of the bank shortly thereafter with what appeared to be cash. I believe that person to be the defendant, who is sitting there (points)." The testimony of non-expert witnesses is limited to facts, not opinions. Because for all I know, the note could have been a valid withdrawal slip, the customer may have been in a hurry, and the money was actually stolen by a teller and an accomplice who used the rushed customer's large withdrawal as a cover (was the customer an accomplice? I don't know!). If I were not a witness, I wouldn't make such a claim in the first place.