5 ms·

Lack of evidence of something does not equal evidence of non-existence of said thing.

by jexah 8y ago

abenedic 8y ago
A more common phrasing is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
- geggam 8y ago
  Proof of guilt is required in criminal case however, so absence of evidence is evidence of innocence.
  - nf05papsjfVbc 8y ago
    Absence of evidence only means that there is not sufficient evidence to pronounce the defendant guilty. It is not evidence of innocence. They are not the same.
    - geggam 8y ago
      You can either be innocent or guilty in court. So yes. It is.
      - Retric 8y ago
        You are never declared innocent, only not guilty. Functionality they are similar as you can't be tried for the same crime. But, being declared 'not guilty' is not useful in a civil case related to the same issue.
        isostatic 8y ago
        Never is a strong word. A woman who spent 17 years in a California prison for a murder she didn’t commit was declared factually innocent Friday, clearing the way for her to collect about $600,000 in compensation from the state. [0] https://globalnews.ca/news/1686476/judge-declares-woman-who-spent-17-years-in-california-prison-innocent/ https://globalnews.ca/news/1686476/judge-declares-woman-who-...
        erric 8y ago
        That’s a paltry sum to exchange for 17 years.
        Retric 8y ago
        Factually innocent is separated from actual innocence. http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=7019 http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=7019 Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime.
      - a_e_k 8y ago
        Personally, I've always liked the Scottish third option of "not proven."
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      Logically, they are not the same. In the US, the accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The defendant in a civil case is presumed not liable unless the plaintiff can prove by preponderance of evidence that they are responsible. Under those standards, without evidence, the defense wins. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter if they are innocent or unprovably guilty. Al Capone [probably] wasn't innocent, but he was not found guilty of anything until they tried to get him for tax evasion.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Proof of guilt is required in criminal case Proof of culpability is required in both civil and criminal cases, though the standard of proof.is different. > so absence of evidence is evidence of innocence. Absence of evidence of guilt isn't evidence of innocence, though absence of evidence of guilt makes a not guilty verdict nore likely. The presumption of innocence means that innocence is the default conclusion in the absence of evidence, it doesn't change what is or isn't evidence of innocence.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    True. But we do know that thousands of people in the criminal justice system have lied about secret evidence. If even 10% of them went to trial, I bet that relevant evidence would come out. Some of them could accept plea deals, and testify against their managers. That's quite the fantasy, isn't it?
will_brown 8y ago
In the context of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence, the prosecution has to turn over all evidence (including mitigating evidence) in discovery and failure to do so means: a. It doesn’t exist, b. If it does the prosecution is risking mistrial; their career/disbarment; and over turning convictions going back in time.
- charleslmunger 8y ago
  https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origi... You're not wrong, but you're also significantly overstating the risks to prosecutors. Prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct. http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutor...
  - moomin 8y ago
    Indeed it’s so common there’s an accepted term for burying your poison vine: parallel construction.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      This. It has become the norm. I suppose that it's justified by outrage over the sorts of crime involved. But with SOD and Stingrays, we're talking about widespread subversion of federal agencies, state police and prosecutors, and probably at least some judges. It has indeed been a criminal conspiracy. Not that anyone will ever be prosecuted for it.
- yetanother1980 8y ago
  I don't know about the US but in the UK there has just been a major and sadly underreported scandal with police failing to disclose evidence to defence solicitors.

Lack of evidence of something does not equal evidence of non-existence of said thing.

by jexah 8y ago

Lack of evidence of something does not equal evidence of non-existence of said thing.

abenedic 8y ago

A more common phrasing is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

geggam 8y ago
Proof of guilt is required in criminal case however, so absence of evidence is evidence of innocence.
- nf05papsjfVbc 8y ago
  Absence of evidence only means that there is not sufficient evidence to pronounce the defendant guilty. It is not evidence of innocence. They are not the same.
  - geggam 8y ago
    You can either be innocent or guilty in court. So yes. It is.
    - Retric 8y ago
      You are never declared innocent, only not guilty. Functionality they are similar as you can't be tried for the same crime. But, being declared 'not guilty' is not useful in a civil case related to the same issue.
      - isostatic 8y ago
        Never is a strong word. A woman who spent 17 years in a California prison for a murder she didn’t commit was declared factually innocent Friday, clearing the way for her to collect about $600,000 in compensation from the state. [0] https://globalnews.ca/news/1686476/judge-declares-woman-who-spent-17-years-in-california-prison-innocent/ https://globalnews.ca/news/1686476/judge-declares-woman-who-...
        erric 8y ago
        That’s a paltry sum to exchange for 17 years.
        Retric 8y ago
        Factually innocent is separated from actual innocence. http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=7019 http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=7019 Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime.
    - a_e_k 8y ago
      Personally, I've always liked the Scottish third option of "not proven."
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Logically, they are not the same. In the US, the accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The defendant in a civil case is presumed not liable unless the plaintiff can prove by preponderance of evidence that they are responsible. Under those standards, without evidence, the defense wins. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter if they are innocent or unprovably guilty. Al Capone [probably] wasn't innocent, but he was not found guilty of anything until they tried to get him for tax evasion.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Proof of guilt is required in criminal case Proof of culpability is required in both civil and criminal cases, though the standard of proof.is different. > so absence of evidence is evidence of innocence. Absence of evidence of guilt isn't evidence of innocence, though absence of evidence of guilt makes a not guilty verdict nore likely. The presumption of innocence means that innocence is the default conclusion in the absence of evidence, it doesn't change what is or isn't evidence of innocence.
- mirimir 8y ago
  True. But we do know that thousands of people in the criminal justice system have lied about secret evidence. If even 10% of them went to trial, I bet that relevant evidence would come out. Some of them could accept plea deals, and testify against their managers. That's quite the fantasy, isn't it?

will_brown 8y ago

In the context of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence, the prosecution has to turn over all evidence (including mitigating evidence) in discovery and failure to do so means: a. It doesn’t exist, b. If it does the prosecution is risking mistrial; their career/disbarment; and over turning convictions going back in time.

charleslmunger 8y ago
https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origi... You're not wrong, but you're also significantly overstating the risks to prosecutors. Prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct. http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutor...
- moomin 8y ago
  Indeed it’s so common there’s an accepted term for burying your poison vine: parallel construction.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    This. It has become the norm. I suppose that it's justified by outrage over the sorts of crime involved. But with SOD and Stingrays, we're talking about widespread subversion of federal agencies, state police and prosecutors, and probably at least some judges. It has indeed been a criminal conspiracy. Not that anyone will ever be prosecuted for it.
yetanother1980 8y ago
I don't know about the US but in the UK there has just been a major and sadly underreported scandal with police failing to disclose evidence to defence solicitors.