3 ms·
1) Lower than preponderance of evidence? I believe you about it having such a standard (we can call it presence of evidence or presence of suspicion), but not
by savingsPossible 5y ago
1) Lower than preponderance of evidence?
I believe you about it having such a standard (we can call it presence of evidence or presence of suspicion), but not on it being right.
2) Preponderance of evidence makes sense on civil suits because they are kinda inherently simmetrical. Either A loses or B loses. We would probably do better in using the standard of evidence for, say, a traffic violation, in the case of social "lets get this guy fired and try to make sure he never gets a job again" -- might not be enough of a standard, but better
- azernik 5y agoThe only standard mentioned in this thread was "beyond a reasonable doubt", to which someone replied that it should absolutely be the standard.
- savingsPossible 5y agoDid you mean to say "social opprobium" (aka, lets get this guy fired and kicked out of places) should have a lower standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Because reading your post I understood that it should be lower then the civil standard (i.e.: "preponderance of evidence") Which I believe it *has*, but absolutely should not have