Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 15, 2024, 1:22 am

Poll: Is there Evidence to Convict
This poll is closed.
Yes: the testimony is Evidence
33.33%
3 33.33%
No: the testimony is not evidence
66.67%
6 66.67%
Total 9 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evidence to Convict?
RE: Evidence to Convict?
(August 3, 2017 at 10:50 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It is my hypothetical.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.
In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.  What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?  


Thanks for the opinion... I find it interesting.

YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT! So you can't even be given the benefit of the doubt in this preposterous hypothetical.

And the fact that you consider the null hypothesis an 'opinion' tells us everything we need to know about you and how you come to believe what you do. Congratulations.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?

---

There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Mister Agenda Wrote:So you're now going to allow things into your story that you didn't say in the first place? You seem rather inconsistent on that point. Is there an actual injured party in evidence?

It is my hypothetical.

And it's reasonable for anyone else to take the same liberties with the OP that you do, and unreasonable for you to bitch about it when they do.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:It doesn't seem unreasonable to clarify when people are trying to evade the point, which is a question about witness testimony apart from anything else.

Are you claiming that I have tried to evade your point?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:In the scenario I gave, I think there was an injured person, as well as the chair.

So you have a victim as well as the weapon, to physically show that someone was injured and that the chair was the instrument of that injury. You have physical evidence that supports the claim that an assault took place. What is lacking is physical evidence pointing to you (perhaps you wore gloves). This is independent corroboration of the part of the claim that asserts that the person was beaten with the chair. Then, with all the other details you added about the impeccable character, lack of bias, and reliability of the witnesses, and presuming the defense gets to cross-examine them; in my opinion, you'd be convicted, because the claim withstood scrutiny proportionate to the seriousness of the consequences.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
(August 3, 2017 at 10:58 am)Astonished Wrote:


YOU CAN'T FUCKING KNOW THAT! So you can't even be given the benefit of the doubt in this preposterous hypothetical.

Are you saying, that there is no way to rule these things out (at least to within reason)?

Quote:And the fact that you consider the null hypothesis an 'opinion' tells us everything we need to know about you and how you come to believe what you do. Congratulations.

No... I find that using the null hypothesis to conclude that we always have good reason to doubt an interesting opinion.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.  - Martin Luther
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
RoadRunner79 Wrote:What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

The valid reasons that mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture are additional evidences for the veracity of the claim/testimony.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?

Given the physical evidence that the crime actually occurred, the investigation that found evidence to support the character, reliability, and lack of relevant bias among the witnesses; the plausible similarity of the testimonies, and their testimonies surviving cross-examination by the defense; I think conviction would be reasonable.

It's your scenario, and it doesn't seem to actually involve 'based on the testimony of others alone' any more.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
(August 3, 2017 at 11:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:
RoadRunner79 Wrote:What if I only robbed him (took the $500 in cash that he had).  A number of independent people witnessed it, and again mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture.

The valid reasons that mistaken identity is not an issue and collusion is not in the picture are additional evidences for the veracity of the claim/testimony.

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Are you saying there is no way, based on the testimony of others alone, that there would be reason for a conviction of the crime?

Given the physical evidence that the crime actually occurred, the investigation that found evidence to support the character, reliability, and lack of relevant bias among the witnesses; the plausible similarity of the testimonies, and their testimonies surviving cross-examination by the defense; I think conviction would be reasonable.

It's your scenario, and it doesn't seem to actually involve 'based on the testimony of other alone' any more.

Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.  - Martin Luther
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
(August 3, 2017 at 6:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Not adding new "ifs".  The description, that there was no explicit physical evidence which pointed to any particular person was there from the beginning. And it's also the point of the question.

Ah.  What you have there is a straw man -- in the case of a physical assault, there would almost certainly be some physical evidence.  Without a victim or evidence that there was an actual set-to, the police would have nothing to go on and wouldn't be able to file charges.

That does appear to answer your question -- "No, statements of alleged witnesses are in themselves not enough to go on."
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
As I said he's just going to keep making it up as he goes along .And bitches when you do the same thing .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
(August 3, 2017 at 11:24 am)Astreja Wrote: "No, statements of alleged witnesses are in themselves not enough to go on."

Precisely. Eyewitness testimony is enough for questioning, but not enough for a conviction.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
RoadRunner79 Wrote:Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?

No. The injured victim and the chair used to bludgeon him are the evidences of the act.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: Evidence to Convict?
(August 3, 2017 at 11:36 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:
RoadRunner79 Wrote:Yes, and the testimony is the evidence of the act.... correct?

No. The injured victim and the chair used to bludgeon him are the evidences of the act.

The best the testimony could do is encourage us to look to evidence
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is‏ ‏there 50 evidence of evolution?‎ king krish 74 12164 January 14, 2015 at 1:50 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents? Alter2Ego 20 8408 August 13, 2013 at 9:48 am
Last Post: Something completely different
  Researchers Find More Evidence That Dolphins Use Names pocaracas 6 2259 July 25, 2013 at 11:02 am
Last Post: Doubting Thomas
  Evidence of life on Europa and Enceladus? popeyespappy 7 3166 July 8, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Best Evidence For Evolution RonaldReagansGhost666 35 15762 February 12, 2013 at 7:06 am
Last Post: Zone
  An Apologist's Reference for Evidence of Evolution Erinome 28 9080 December 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Neanderthals are us– More evidence Justtristo 0 1325 August 29, 2011 at 10:34 am
Last Post: Justtristo
Lightbulb Evidence For Evolution HeyItsZeus 5 3322 August 27, 2010 at 1:32 am
Last Post: Entropist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)