The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
In This, The End of All Things, I Come Out of Lurking
jonas:
--- Quote from: wardenferry419 on January 04, 2018, 10:02:35 AM ---No reason to get so serious. It is merely an idea. And ideas are fluid. I like the idea and find it plausible. But, I am not married to it.
--- End quote ---
yep, you sound like a prosecutor ;p
Rasins:
--- Quote from: groinkick on December 24, 2017, 06:57:04 PM ---#3. "That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality." This is usually the case for religious, philosophical, or mythological debate, not in the real world. For example in a police investigation:
Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect: you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm
The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene. The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not. The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting. In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim.
Cowl is a real character who's identity is hidden.
Simon is a real character within the stories
Claim: Simon is Cowl, but admits there isn't evidence to prove it.
Poster claim: Theory is 100% wrong.
Burden is now on poster to prove WHY it is 100% wrong, or admit that they don't have evidence, and simply disagree with claim. Poster cannot possibly know if Simon is not Cowl without out of book information (Jim saying so), Foreknowledge (a beta reader who knows the identity), or strong in book evidence (which I requested because I want to know what it is). If Jim didn't say so, if they don't have foreknowledge, and they have no evidence to deny the theory then they have no basis to claim that the belief Simon is Cowl is outrageous, and completely wrong.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: SintraEdrien on January 01, 2018, 03:45:42 PM ---I am sorry, but I must disagree with certain parts of this post (specifically, point 3). In the USA, the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor despite the lack of evidence "proving" the innocence of the accused. Unless and until convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal case), a jury must acknowledge the innocence of the defendant. Case in point, the 5th Amendment was explicitly designed to protect the rights of innocents who are accused (which is why you should never ever talk to law enforcement without a lawyer, even as a "witness"- it will be used against you).
In this case, the suspect is still to be regarded as innocent, and your line above: "The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there." is in fact true and correct- the prosecution must still, absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that the suspect did indeed commit the crime, with actual evidence[/i], or else the jury is required to find the suspect to be innocent. NO further effort by the accused is necessary (granted, in the real world, this does not always hold true, but the efforts of the defense are needed because the accused may in fact be guilty (system working as intended), or the suspect needs to prove the prosecution has committed errors either willful, or malignant, or both (flaws in the operations of the system).
Otherwise, all the prosecution would need is to fling accusations, and then sit back and demand "evidence" of innocence.
Granted, there are a lot of problems when actual guilty parties evade justice under this rule of law, but I chalk that up to the problems of human nature- the system was designed in an attempt to hold back the excesses so frequent under, say, the Napoleonic Code.
--- End quote ---
Point of order ... While yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, claiming something and requiring someone to prove a negative is not possible. Rather, they are providing evidence of an alternative ...
Now, looking at the bolded "conversation", the burden of proof that it was not them IS on the defendant. The way they do that is to prove that they were somewhere else. This is NOT the same thing as proving that they didn't do it. Rather it's proof that they couldn't have done it, operating under the current laws of physics we currently live under and understand.
wardenferry419:
--- Quote from: jonas on January 04, 2018, 01:23:57 PM ---yep, you sound like a prosecutor ;p
--- End quote ---
I can't be a lawyer; I still have a soul. Granted, it is a little soiled and warped.
jonas:
--- Quote from: wardenferry419 on January 05, 2018, 12:08:20 AM ---I can't be a lawyer; I still have a soul. Granted, it is a little soiled and warped.
--- End quote ---
How do you know you still have a soul? Molly thinks she still does after all..
Griffyn612:
--- Quote from: groinkick on December 24, 2017, 06:57:04 PM ---Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect: you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm
The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene. The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not. The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting. In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim.
--- End quote ---
You know this is almost entirely wrong, right? The questions a prosecutor asks do not put the burden on the accused. If they ask where I was, and I say at home alone, the burden is still on the prosecution to not only prove that I wasn't at home alone, but that I was at the crime scene. I don't have to prove where I was, because I have the presumption of innocence in my favor.
Now, I can provide proof to help my defense. But if I left it at, "sorry, I was alone", it's not going to get me convicted. The evidence proving I was there (assuming there was any) would have to do that. That's the whole point of innocent-until-proven-guilty.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version