5 ms·

Is such a battery of arguments permissible in legal contexts, e.g. in a criminal defense?

• brey 5y ago
  'permissible' isn't quite the point ... if it makes the jury think you're lying, maybe it isn't the best strategy.
  • prvc 5y ago
    Certainly, but is there some other penalty for what might be construed as contemptuous and disreputable behavior?
    • thehappypm 5y ago
      It might be perjury
  • Mordisquitos 5y ago
    1. The jury should not base their decision on their belief whether either side is lying. 2. The defence is expected to lie, and if the prosecution cannot prove that every single one of the defence's arguments are lies, then the jury cannot convict beyond reasonable doubt. 3. The jury should assume that the prosecution is lying by default, and acquit if the prosecution does not convince them otherwise.
    • duxup 5y ago
      The jury can decide that any given testimony is a lie and weight it accordingly.
      • dragonwriter 5y ago
        Defense theories are not testimony and, ideally, should not be considered in the evaluation of testimony. (In practice, humans don't consistently compartmentalize well enough to reliably avoid this, though.)
        • duxup 5y ago
          "defense theories" are going to have evidence associated with them. At that point my point applies.
    • gpm 5y ago
      > 2. The defence is expected to lie The defence is expressly prohibited from lying. Lawyers have a so called duty of candor [1] outlining this. Defendants testify under oath to make this clear to them. Defence attorneys must disclose to the court if their client lies to the court (and they can't convince their client to voluntarily disclose it instead) [2]. That doesn't mean people are expected to take defendants at their word during trial, juries are allowed to decide they think that someone was lying, but they aren't expected to lie. [1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/duty-of-candor/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/duty-of-candor/ [2] https://www.eiglarshlaw.com/when-clients-liewhat-must-you-do.html https://www.eiglarshlaw.com/when-clients-liewhat-must-you-do...
• evilotto 5y ago
  It was literally Kim Potter's defense. Shooting was an accident and untentional, but she was within her rights to use deadly force.
  • wnoise 5y ago
    Those aren't actually contradictory, but independent.
  • fmihaila 5y ago
    These two assertions ('shooting was an accident...' and 'she was within her rights...') are not inherently contradictory, though. That's what's remarkable about Kettle Logic: genuine contradictions can be employed in a proof in a convincing (and not necessarily invalid) manner. The above can be orthogonal or complementary assertions, but they are not contradictory.
  • munchbunny 5y ago
    That's not kettle logic, that's a mode of legal argumentation that deals with boolean "and" constructions of a law. If some charge requires both [A] and [B] for the accused to be guilty, then this argument is that it's neither [A] nor [B], but the defendant is innocent if they can prove either half of the argument, since the condition is "[A] and [B]", not "[A] or [B]".
  • LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    That brings up a question. If someone were within their rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if they used it intentionally?
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      Whether they were within their rights would only come into play if they had the requisite mental state (intent, recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first place.
      • LudwigNagasena 5y ago
• yellowstuff 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading Using multiple logically inconsistent defenses is generally allowed in the US.
  • brimble 5y ago
    When you think about it, it'd really suck to be failing to prove what is in fact your complete innocence and not be able to advance other defenses that could at least get you a reduced sentence (or even acquitted—correct outcome, wrong reason).
    • GauntletWizard 5y ago
      The wikipedia article lists "My dog was tied up and I don't own a dog", which is on the face of it contradictory - But there can easily be legal nuance. For example, if I'm acting as a foster home or running a kennel, I can simultaneously advance evidence that "My dog" was tied up, while also advocating for lack of liability because "It's not my dog". On the other hand, I've seen a ton of "I didn't do x, and even if I did do X it was acceptable because Y" where Y was the worse crime... that somehow still succeeded as a defense. Thankfully not in a court of law, but public opinion is weird.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• golemotron 5y ago
  It's only inconsistent if you use "and" rather than "or."
• aidenn0 5y ago
  My dad ran into something similar while on a Jury. It was for indecent exposure Both sides agreed that the man was in the car with his pants down (defense claimed defendant was looking for a tick on his leg). The defense argued that with the window tinting on the car window, it was not possible to see into the car. My dad's takeaway from this was that one of these must be true: 1. Someone coincidentally accused someone of having their pants down without being able to see them, and happened to be right 2. The window was rolled down 3. The defense is presenting false evidence