5 ms·

This is why I could just never work in the legal system, at least not with cases like this. My own conclusion from this is that we have no idea what happened an

by nilkn 10y ago

This is why I could just never work in the legal system, at least not with cases like this. My own conclusion from this is that we have no idea what happened and whether or not either of them were actually guilty. Finding DNA doesn't mean much. It means they had some sort of sexual contact, but the question of whether that contact was consensual is still reduced entirely to testimony.

gedy 10y ago
The system is built around reasonable doubt - not any possible shred of a doubt.
- nilkn 10y ago
  AnthonyMouse posted multiple completely reasonable alternative explanations that are 100% consistent with the evidence. To me, that's a lot more than "a shred" of doubt.
  - PJDK 10y ago
    Not really, because that version of events would also require evidence, which is why trials are a thing.
    - nilkn 10y ago
      So the version of events which leads to a conviction doesn't require evidence, but the multiple versions which don't lead to a conviction do require evidence? Isn't this a complete inversion of "innocent until proven guilty"?
      - PJDK 10y ago
        Not at all. The prosecution makes a case to see "this guy did it" and they attempt to provide evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense makes the case the guy didn't do it. One way is to give an alternative version of events and the evidence for it. The defense could just say "nah, but what if it's some kind of gay revenge love triangle?" and sit down. The jury would then convict because that's stupid. But if they also provided a bunch of love letters then maybe that holds water. Ultimately that's why there's a jury.
        nilkn 10y ago
        > The jury would then convict because that's stupid. You're describing a situation where the prosecution says "this guy did it" and then provides no evidence. Then the defense says "no, this other completely plausible stuff happened" and then also provides no evidence. Then the jury defaults to the prosecution's case which is precisely an inversion of "innocent until proven guilty."
        PJDK 10y ago
        Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the implication was intended to be that the prosecution would set out a case (witness statements, DNA whatever...) and just replying as the defendant with a simple statement would not be enough. The jury will do what the jury will do, but my very very limited experience (was on jury duty but didn't actually sit on a case, chatted to a defense lawyer and chatted to someone else who has also actually sat on a jury for a murder case - all in the UK) is that they are more inclined to side with the defendant. Edited to clarify the first paragraph
        alasdair_ 10y ago
        > they are more inclined to side with the defendant. When it comes to especially horrible crimes (rape, murder, especially of children), I don't believe this is true.

by nilkn 10y ago

gedy 10y ago

The system is built around reasonable doubt - not any possible shred of a doubt.

nilkn 10y ago
AnthonyMouse posted multiple completely reasonable alternative explanations that are 100% consistent with the evidence. To me, that's a lot more than "a shred" of doubt.
- PJDK 10y ago
  Not really, because that version of events would also require evidence, which is why trials are a thing.
  - nilkn 10y ago
    So the version of events which leads to a conviction doesn't require evidence, but the multiple versions which don't lead to a conviction do require evidence? Isn't this a complete inversion of "innocent until proven guilty"?
    - PJDK 10y ago
      Not at all. The prosecution makes a case to see "this guy did it" and they attempt to provide evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense makes the case the guy didn't do it. One way is to give an alternative version of events and the evidence for it. The defense could just say "nah, but what if it's some kind of gay revenge love triangle?" and sit down. The jury would then convict because that's stupid. But if they also provided a bunch of love letters then maybe that holds water. Ultimately that's why there's a jury.
      - nilkn 10y ago
        > The jury would then convict because that's stupid. You're describing a situation where the prosecution says "this guy did it" and then provides no evidence. Then the defense says "no, this other completely plausible stuff happened" and then also provides no evidence. Then the jury defaults to the prosecution's case which is precisely an inversion of "innocent until proven guilty."
        PJDK 10y ago
        Sorry if I wasn't clear, but the implication was intended to be that the prosecution would set out a case (witness statements, DNA whatever...) and just replying as the defendant with a simple statement would not be enough. The jury will do what the jury will do, but my very very limited experience (was on jury duty but didn't actually sit on a case, chatted to a defense lawyer and chatted to someone else who has also actually sat on a jury for a murder case - all in the UK) is that they are more inclined to side with the defendant. Edited to clarify the first paragraph
        alasdair_ 10y ago
        > they are more inclined to side with the defendant. When it comes to especially horrible crimes (rape, murder, especially of children), I don't believe this is true.