3 ms·

There is no evidence that she evaded taxes presented by the state, and she has not been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence or present any defense.

There is no evidence that she evaded taxes presented by the state, and she has not been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence or present any defense. A confession coerced by an oppressive state is not evidence; it would not be accepted by evidence by any legitimate court. That's why legitimate governments have rule of law, courts, trials, juries, and due process. Furthermore, persecution for alleged financial corruption is a standard modus operendi for oppressive states. As examples, Xi has been doing it to his political opposition, Putin does it, and the current Saudi Arabian dictator is another example.

nkurz 8y ago
There is no evidence that she evaded taxes presented by the state, and she has not been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence or present any defense. As I said, this is theoretically possible, but I haven't seen sources claiming that the charges are a complete sham. Can you find some? That's why legitimate governments have rule of law, courts, trials, juries, and due process. It's interesting that you emphasize "juries" as the key element of a legitimate government. Did you know that Germany doesn't use them? https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html Some even argue that using a panel of trained judges provides better justice than using a group of untrained citizens: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/what-america-can-learn-from-germanys-justice-system/258208/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/what-am... Is it a better approach? I don't know, but I don't think trial by jury should be considered a required characteristic for a legitimate government.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  The burden of proof is on the accuser, and in legitimate government, on the state. I could say you are a thief or an axe murderer - are you required to disprove it if I don't back up my claim? In fact, it would be slander on my part. See my GP comment regarding other elements due process. Until they prove otherwise, she is innocent.

nkurz 8y ago

There is no evidence that she evaded taxes presented by the state, and she has not been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence or present any defense. As I said, this is theoretically possible, but I haven't seen sources claiming that the charges are a complete sham. Can you find some? That's why legitimate governments have rule of law, courts, trials, juries, and due process. It's interesting that you emphasize "juries" as the key element of a legitimate government. Did you know that Germany doesn't use them? https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/legal.html Some even argue that using a panel of trained judges provides better justice than using a group of untrained citizens: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/what-america-can-learn-from-germanys-justice-system/258208/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/what-am... Is it a better approach? I don't know, but I don't think trial by jury should be considered a required characteristic for a legitimate government.

forapurpose 8y ago
The burden of proof is on the accuser, and in legitimate government, on the state. I could say you are a thief or an axe murderer - are you required to disprove it if I don't back up my claim? In fact, it would be slander on my part. See my GP comment regarding other elements due process. Until they prove otherwise, she is innocent.