RE: Evidence to Convict?
August 2, 2017 at 4:27 pm
(This post was last modified: August 2, 2017 at 4:30 pm by Mister Agenda.)
A criminal accusation is a story, one with serious consequences if a conviction is achieved. The accusation should be listened to, and corroborating or disconfirming evidence sought. Testimony is always a story, a claim, something to investigate to see if it is supported by evidence.
The evidence doesn't all necessarily have to be external to the story, for example, too much inconsistency can make it problematic before you even look for a weapon or a victim. Or it might violate Bayesian probability without sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the null hypothesis, as in the example someone mentioned of you injuring the person with the chair using telekinesis. That would more likely be an indication that the witness was delusional or deceived than that real telekinesis was used to beat someone badly with a chair. Ten people willing to show up in court to testify to it would be intriguing enough to really delve deep into what actually happened...maybe firm evidence of actual TK will finally be found! But the possibility of telekinesis must be adequately supported before it is reasonable to accept the testimony.
There's quite a record in the USA of convictions based solely on testimony being overturned by physical evidence that wasn't available or couldn't be analyzed at the time, though sadly it's often years later.
In biomedical research, there's a concept of 'hierarchy of evidence'. Expert opinion and anecdotal evidence rank at the bottom.
I would say that in general application in court, below that is 'hearsay'. That is, you are not a witness yourself, but you are bringing something someone else said. It is usually not allowed in court because the actual witness is not available for cross-examination. 'Jane told me Sam said' is double hearsay. 'Jane told me someone said' is double hearsay and an anonymous source, to boot. The more removed the hearsay, the greater the legal burden of proof that must be overcome to justify allowing it. Without the corroborating information the hearsay is merely an unsupported claim.
This seems needlessly obtuse. You of course, based on your fingerprints on the chair corroborating the story of the witnesses.
The evidence doesn't all necessarily have to be external to the story, for example, too much inconsistency can make it problematic before you even look for a weapon or a victim. Or it might violate Bayesian probability without sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the null hypothesis, as in the example someone mentioned of you injuring the person with the chair using telekinesis. That would more likely be an indication that the witness was delusional or deceived than that real telekinesis was used to beat someone badly with a chair. Ten people willing to show up in court to testify to it would be intriguing enough to really delve deep into what actually happened...maybe firm evidence of actual TK will finally be found! But the possibility of telekinesis must be adequately supported before it is reasonable to accept the testimony.
There's quite a record in the USA of convictions based solely on testimony being overturned by physical evidence that wasn't available or couldn't be analyzed at the time, though sadly it's often years later.
In biomedical research, there's a concept of 'hierarchy of evidence'. Expert opinion and anecdotal evidence rank at the bottom.
I would say that in general application in court, below that is 'hearsay'. That is, you are not a witness yourself, but you are bringing something someone else said. It is usually not allowed in court because the actual witness is not available for cross-examination. 'Jane told me Sam said' is double hearsay. 'Jane told me someone said' is double hearsay and an anonymous source, to boot. The more removed the hearsay, the greater the legal burden of proof that must be overcome to justify allowing it. Without the corroborating information the hearsay is merely an unsupported claim.
RoadRunner79 Wrote:Astreja Wrote:I think the presence of an actual injured person, and your fingerprints on the chair, would be better evidence to convict.
Who are you going to convict? Based on what?
This seems needlessly obtuse. You of course, based on your fingerprints on the chair corroborating the story of the witnesses.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
