4 ms·

If you believe that people are born in a state of innocence, meaning they have not committed a crime, as I do, then you believe they are innocent until they ha

by Aqueous 12y ago

If you believe that people are born in a state of innocence, meaning they have not committed a crime, as I do, then you believe they are innocent until they have been shown to be guilty. In this case a presumption of innocence means "things are the same as I understand them to be based on previous evidence until I am shown that they are now different." You are not born guilty so you must remain in a state of innocence until you commit a crime. And because that crime must be proven you are innocent until proven guilty. In this case neutrality is the same thing as believing in someone's innocence. This is fundamentally different than, for example, the distinction between a lack of a belief of God and a belief that there is no God - because we know something about people, all people, from experience, whereas we know nothing about God.

dllthomas 12y ago
Let's unpack a few things here. If you interpret "presumption of innocence" as purely a check against the base rate fallacy, then sure - it applies anywhere humans are doing reasoning. I think that it serves other important roles in regard to punishment in particular, and those other roles are harmful in situations where you are seeking truth as opposed to asking whether to punish. In particular, consider the obviously fallaceous: "Should we put more resources toward investigating rape allegations? Well, in each of those cases where we have not put enough resources to determine the veracity of the allegations, we need to assume the innocence of the accused. By that reasoning, we can conclude that 100% of uninvestigated allegations are false, so we clearly should not spend any more resources on them."
- Aqueous 12y ago
  Knowing that some uninvestigated allegations must certainly be true, based on probability alone, I cannot tell you from that information which of the allegations are true, and which are not true. So from an epistemic standpoint I am no better off than I am if the allegation were not made at all. Lets say we know from experience that about 10% of the prevously uninvestigated cases end up proving guilt. Does that mean the allegation itself means the person being accused has a 10% increased probability of being guilty, merely because they were accused? In other words, does merely accusing them make them less innocent? I would have to say no - their objective innocence or guilt has nothing to do with whether or not an allegation was made.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    As far as I can tell, this is basically gibberish.
    - Aqueous 12y ago
      Then let's "unpack things" shall we? You said: "those other roles are harmful in situations where you are seeking truth as opposed to asking whether to punish." To use your example about investigating rape allegations, the presumption of innocence doesn't stop the legal system from investigating (possibly true) allegations to begin with, so why would it stop our political system from being open to the possibility of devoting more resources to investigating rape allegations, or journalists from pursuing a story to determine the truth of what happened? In other words, the possible truth of an allegation shouldn't nullify the presumption of innocence because possible truth is not evidence. We are in no better position now that this particular allegation has been made than we were before it ws made - we still have no idea what happened. And that's true whether we're a prosecutor or just a regular person wanting to know what happened. In fact I'd say in all cases the presumption of innocence is not harmful to seeking truth and in fact enhances it as it prompts the production of further evidence. Assuming anything less than innocence seems more harmful to seeking truth as it allows instances like the Duke Lacrosse case or (perhaps) this recent Michael Arrington ordeal to take place, which causes more skepticism when future victims make a legitimate accusation.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        Sigh. Of course an allegation is evidence. If it was not evidence, we would expect to do as well investigating cases where there have been no allegations as cases where there have. That's crazy. And what you've done above isn't "unpacking things" - you're using the same terms in the same ways with all the same assumptions. This is not productive. I'm done here.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        12y ago

by Aqueous 12y ago

dllthomas 12y ago

Let's unpack a few things here. If you interpret "presumption of innocence" as purely a check against the base rate fallacy, then sure - it applies anywhere humans are doing reasoning. I think that it serves other important roles in regard to punishment in particular, and those other roles are harmful in situations where you are seeking truth as opposed to asking whether to punish. In particular, consider the obviously fallaceous: "Should we put more resources toward investigating rape allegations? Well, in each of those cases where we have not put enough resources to determine the veracity of the allegations, we need to assume the innocence of the accused. By that reasoning, we can conclude that 100% of uninvestigated allegations are false, so we clearly should not spend any more resources on them."

Aqueous 12y ago
Knowing that some uninvestigated allegations must certainly be true, based on probability alone, I cannot tell you from that information which of the allegations are true, and which are not true. So from an epistemic standpoint I am no better off than I am if the allegation were not made at all. Lets say we know from experience that about 10% of the prevously uninvestigated cases end up proving guilt. Does that mean the allegation itself means the person being accused has a 10% increased probability of being guilty, merely because they were accused? In other words, does merely accusing them make them less innocent? I would have to say no - their objective innocence or guilt has nothing to do with whether or not an allegation was made.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  As far as I can tell, this is basically gibberish.
  - Aqueous 12y ago
    Then let's "unpack things" shall we? You said: "those other roles are harmful in situations where you are seeking truth as opposed to asking whether to punish." To use your example about investigating rape allegations, the presumption of innocence doesn't stop the legal system from investigating (possibly true) allegations to begin with, so why would it stop our political system from being open to the possibility of devoting more resources to investigating rape allegations, or journalists from pursuing a story to determine the truth of what happened? In other words, the possible truth of an allegation shouldn't nullify the presumption of innocence because possible truth is not evidence. We are in no better position now that this particular allegation has been made than we were before it ws made - we still have no idea what happened. And that's true whether we're a prosecutor or just a regular person wanting to know what happened. In fact I'd say in all cases the presumption of innocence is not harmful to seeking truth and in fact enhances it as it prompts the production of further evidence. Assuming anything less than innocence seems more harmful to seeking truth as it allows instances like the Duke Lacrosse case or (perhaps) this recent Michael Arrington ordeal to take place, which causes more skepticism when future victims make a legitimate accusation.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Sigh. Of course an allegation is evidence. If it was not evidence, we would expect to do as well investigating cases where there have been no allegations as cases where there have. That's crazy. And what you've done above isn't "unpacking things" - you're using the same terms in the same ways with all the same assumptions. This is not productive. I'm done here.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - 12y ago