Some stuff about belief

Kvarme Ate My Food · June 16, 2016

No I am trying to learn and you aren't helping but I will try one last time.

1) CPS only sends cases that they feel have a reasonable chance of conviction
2) A reasonable chance of conviction means there is a reasonable chance a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt
3) It is not rational to believe that a jury may find beyond a reasonable doubt if you don't believe beyond the balance of probabilities.

You agree with 1, 2 seems self explanatory given a conviction requires the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt and 3 is basic rationality. So which premise is wrong.

Like would it be okay if I said the CPS thinks the defendant did it? Does that swerve the problem of using the word guilt, is guilt in legal terms only to be used when proved beyond the burden of proof. That I am fine accepting and I will rephrase my original comment to read the CPS only prosecute people who they think did it.

One flaw in your logic is that you're assuming (1) "I believe this is probably true" = (2) "I believe this is true".

It may be rational for an individual to go from (1) to (2) with no further evidence, but it does not follow that (1)=(2).

the issue was whether there is tension between presuming an accuser is telling the truth and the principle of innocent till proven guilty

The issue was whether there's a tension in the mind of a liberal person, not whether there's a tension in the application of the law, fwiw.

We were in fact talking specifically about a case that will never come to trial as Freud is dead, so the CPS stuff was rather a red herring.

Swan Red · June 16, 2016

This post is not viewable to guests.