2 ms·

I'm not talking about what I believe happened, I'm talking about the law. The law states you are innocent until proven guilty, the law effectively states "Nath

I'm not talking about what I believe happened, I'm talking about the law. The law states you are innocent until proven guilty, the law effectively states "Nathaniel Frank" was thinking about having permission for cracking the hash to the fruit salad recipe... until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, not the defense

singron 6y ago
It's not necessarily so clear cut. Without evidence directly linking the cracking to a specific password, the conversation is circumstantial. There often isn't enough direct evidence to be 100% sure of a conviction, so circumstantial evidence is often accepted to get to the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
joshuamorton 6y ago
It's the prosecutions job to prove that that is not a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. Edit: I originally mispoke and had this backwards, but it doesn't actually affect the point.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >It's the defenses job to prove that that is a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. No. At least in the US, it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. The defense needn't prove anything. Although, it's often a good idea to find some evidence that exonerates the defendant. Here's a little primer[0] for you. [0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/defense/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    You're correct, I misspoke. It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case. I've corrected the initial comment.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case. Huh? How would a prosecutor get to try (and attempt to prove) a case if they don't bring the case to the court in the first place? Perhaps I'm missing something here?
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Exactly. They can bring a case before having proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

singron 6y ago

It's not necessarily so clear cut. Without evidence directly linking the cracking to a specific password, the conversation is circumstantial. There often isn't enough direct evidence to be 100% sure of a conviction, so circumstantial evidence is often accepted to get to the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

joshuamorton 6y ago

It's the prosecutions job to prove that that is not a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. Edit: I originally mispoke and had this backwards, but it doesn't actually affect the point.

nobody9999 6y ago
>It's the defenses job to prove that that is a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. No. At least in the US, it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. The defense needn't prove anything. Although, it's often a good idea to find some evidence that exonerates the defendant. Here's a little primer[0] for you. [0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/defense/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You're correct, I misspoke. It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case. I've corrected the initial comment.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case. Huh? How would a prosecutor get to try (and attempt to prove) a case if they don't bring the case to the court in the first place? Perhaps I'm missing something here?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Exactly. They can bring a case before having proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.