Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

How about this, why don't you break down a hierarchy of what you consider the best evidence and why, what's the second best and why, all the way down to what's the worst and why? That way you might actually convey some information. That statement you made doesn't exactly make anything clear.

Also, I can't believe I neglected to do this sooner, it only just occurred to me; Beep-Beep, what exactly makes you think testimony, eyewitness or otherwise, is of value? Considering I gave an entire litany of why it objectively is not reliable and therefore logically should not be considered valuable, what are the reasons you believe it defies all of those problems to the point where it's actually significant? Just, go on, give it a try. I notice theists aren't generally capable of coherently giving the 'why', but merely the 'what' (and barely coherently there, either).

[RoadRunner79]

I assume for the sake of the argument, that for some reason the injured party isn't available as proof that someone was really injured. In that circumstance, I would not convict. I need more than a story that something happened before I'll vote to deprive you of your freedom.

If the injured party IS available as proof that someone was actually interested, we're no longer relying solely on eyewitness testimony, are we?

That would have been a follow up question, if their are answers that didn't already preclude it with this scenario.  In the case above, you do have physical evidence that there was an assault.   But what if it was just extreme verbal abuse, or sexual assault, that doesn't leave any physical evidence.  And all you have is witnesses to the crime. 

It is my understanding, that this issue came up a while ago, at an atheist convention.  Where verbal and sexual assault where committed.  It is also my understanding, that this happened in an elevator with only one person's word against the other.  It caused quite a dispute, and caused some people to change their opinions. 

J. Warner Wallace was a cold case homicide detective.  He reports to winning a case, with no physical evidence.  It was a husband and wife.  They didn't even have a body, she was just missing. The case was cold for a number of years.   They won the case, and after sentencing; the man confessed to the crime.  He also reports that it was a short deliberation by the jury. On the other hand, he also reports winning cases with no direct witness testimony, and only circumstantial evidence.

It's not so black and white, and I think that this view is rather unique to the atheist community.  I asked the question to see just how unique.

[Astonished]

I assume for the sake of the argument, that for some reason the injured party isn't available as proof that someone was really injured. In that circumstance, I would not convict. I need more than a story that something happened before I'll vote to deprive you of your freedom.

If the injured party IS available as proof that someone was actually interested, we're no longer relying solely on eyewitness testimony, are we?

That would have been a follow up question, if their are answers that didn't already preclude it with this scenario.  In the case above, you do have physical evidence that there was an assault.   But what if it was just extreme verbal abuse, or sexual assault, that doesn't leave any physical evidence.  And all you have is witnesses to the crime. 

It is my understanding, that this issue came up a while ago, at an atheist convention.  Where verbal and sexual assault where committed.  It is also my understanding, that this happened in an elevator with only one person's word against the other.  It caused quite a dispute, and caused some people to change their opinions. 

J. Warner Wallace was a cold case homicide detective.  He reports to winning a case, with no physical evidence.  It was a husband and wife.  They didn't even have a body, she was just missing. The case was cold for a number of years.   They won the case, and after sentencing; the man confessed to the crime.  He also reports that it was a short deliberation by the jury. On the other hand, he also reports winning cases with no direct witness testimony, and only circumstantial evidence.

It's not so black and white, and I think that this view is rather unique to the atheist community.  I asked the question to see just how unique.

Didn't Kobe Bryant have to deal with that same thing, and it ended up being a lie or something? I mean, for every example you can give of where it might help, I can give where it's been harmful. It's shit, just give it up.

[Amarok]

That would have been a follow up question, if their are answers that didn't already preclude it with this scenario.  In the case above, you do have physical evidence that there was an assault.   But what if it was just extreme verbal abuse, or sexual assault, that doesn't leave any physical evidence.  And all you have is witnesses to the crime. 

It is my understanding, that this issue came up a while ago, at an atheist convention.  Where verbal and sexual assault where committed.  It is also my understanding, that this happened in an elevator with only one person's word against the other.  It caused quite a dispute, and caused some people to change their opinions. 

J. Warner Wallace was a cold case homicide detective.  He reports to winning a case, with no physical evidence.  It was a husband and wife.  They didn't even have a body, she was just missing. The case was cold for a number of years.   They won the case, and after sentencing; the man confessed to the crime.  He also reports that it was a short deliberation by the jury. On the other hand, he also reports winning cases with no direct witness testimony, and only circumstantial evidence.

It's not so black and white, and I think that this view is rather unique to the atheist community.  I asked the question to see just how unique.

Didn't Kobe Bryant have to deal with that same thing, and it ended up being a lie or something? I mean, for every example you can give of where it might help, I can give where it's been harmful. It's shit, just give it up.

And the cases were it was unhelpful far dwarf the contrary in legality .

[Ravenshire]

Even with an alleged victim, I'm reluctant to convict based just on eyewitness testimony. I would really like to know if the witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse RR.

That's what cross examination is for. Something that's conveniently lacking in the gospel claims.

[Astonished]

Didn't Kobe Bryant have to deal with that same thing, and it ended up being a lie or something? I mean, for every example you can give of where it might help, I can give where it's been harmful. It's shit, just give it up.

And the cases were it was unhelpful far dwarf the contrary in legality .

And the case with 'no evidence' he's describing is an example of a miscarriage of justice. That should be something CONDEMNED, not fucking praised. How does he not see what harm his belief is doing to his mind?

[Amarok]

Indeed it's an awful case it's like something you expect in North Korea .

[Astonished]

Even with an alleged victim, I'm reluctant to convict based just on eyewitness testimony. I would really like to know if the witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse RR.

That's what cross examination is for. Something that's conveniently lacking in the gospel claims.

Because of the special pleading nature of the whole enterprise. They ARE RIGHT, period, the word of that book is infallible.

[RoadRunner79]

How about this, why don't you break down a hierarchy of what you consider the best evidence and why, what's the second best and why, all the way down to what's the worst and why? That way you might actually convey some information. That statement you made doesn't exactly make anything clear.

Also, I can't believe I neglected to do this sooner, it only just occurred to me; Beep-Beep, what exactly makes you think testimony, eyewitness or otherwise, is of value? Considering I gave an entire litany of why it objectively is not reliable and therefore logically should not be considered valuable, what are the reasons you believe it defies all of those problems to the point where it's actually significant? Just, go on, give it a try. I notice theists aren't generally capable of coherently giving the 'why', but merely the 'what' (and barely coherently there, either).

I don't see it as a categorical hierarchy.  To me, it depends on the circumstances, and how well the individual or collective evidence makes something evident. 
It's really on a case by case basis.  Normally, if we are only talking about a single point of evidence, I don't consider that very good. Different types of evidence can have different limitations, different false results, that may need to be accounted for, and different ways to make sure they are handled properly.

I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't.  I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.

[Astonished]

How about this, why don't you break down a hierarchy of what you consider the best evidence and why, what's the second best and why, all the way down to what's the worst and why? That way you might actually convey some information. That statement you made doesn't exactly make anything clear.

Also, I can't believe I neglected to do this sooner, it only just occurred to me; Beep-Beep, what exactly makes you think testimony, eyewitness or otherwise, is of value? Considering I gave an entire litany of why it objectively is not reliable and therefore logically should not be considered valuable, what are the reasons you believe it defies all of those problems to the point where it's actually significant? Just, go on, give it a try. I notice theists aren't generally capable of coherently giving the 'why', but merely the 'what' (and barely coherently there, either).

I don't see it as a categorical hierarchy.  To me, it depends on the circumstances, and how well the individual or collective evidence makes something evident. 
It's really on a case by case basis.  Normally, if we are only talking about a single point of evidence, I don't consider that very good. Different types of evidence can have different limitations, different false results, that may need to be accounted for, and different ways to make sure they are handled properly.

I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't.  I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.

Are you aware-or at least able to understand-that this looks like you're trying to make other evidence look as fallible and unreliable as testimony? That this comes across as an incredible, unwarranted and propaganda-esque dismissal of the value of any evidence at all, just so that you can make it seem as though the worst sort of evidence (the only sort the scriptures have going for them) is still on a comparable footing with every other type? Can you see how, in our shoes, this is what it sounds like you're doing here? That this may be one of the reasons it's so difficult to take anything you say seriously because it's simultaneously maximally ignorant and maximally dishonest?