4 ms·
> How much positive evidence for guilt is necessary before we decide that some man should be put away? Isn’t this what “beyond a reasonable doubt” is doing? It
by SilverElfin 9mo ago
> How much positive evidence for guilt is necessary before we decide that some man should be put away?
Isn’t this what “beyond a reasonable doubt” is doing? It’s obviously not precise but it’s an intention of the current system.
- 20260126032624 9mo ago> How much positive evidence for guilt is necessary before we decide that some man should be put away? The answer to this question is ZERO. We are human, after all (and the corollary is that no amount of evidence will tip the scale for someone we don't want to put away). How much positive evidence for guilt ought to be necessary for a society to remain moral/egalitarian/equitable is a different question entirely.
- philipallstar 9mo agoZero evidence is required to lock someone up?
- pixl97 9mo agoCorrect. The only thing required to lock someone up is power.
- philipallstar 9mo agoWell, power is another euphemism you could deconstruct as well. But that doesn't mean that you can just lock people up, in most countries. I certainly can't.
- tines 9mo agoUh, power is a euphemism? For what, pray tell?
- philipallstar 9mo agoIn this case, for the ability to communicate to people who are strong to physically move someone somewhere else in a way that they will listen to. In that sense, you don't need power; you just need to be strong enough to physically move someone into a room and lock the door from the outside. Have I disproven the existence of power, or just described a component of it?
- GavinMcG 9mo agoI think you’re taking “necessary” literally, whereas the author is posing a question about morality.