Quote
I'm not sure how my argument could be interpreted in such a way. The presumption of innocence until guilt is legally proven through the determination of a court does happen to be a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence, so, if I'm reading you correctly, it would be you advocating the tossing out the whole legal business altogether if you wanted to dismiss such a crucial pivot of modern-day justice? I do sense just a little hint of sarcasm though.Originally Posted by dahamsta
I haven't brought any other imaginary or "social" court into it. All I'm saying is that a legal court's finding is no more and no less than a determination by a judge and/or jury and that such courts, being human in construction, are not infallible; sometimes their determinations will conform with the facts and on other rare (you would hope) occasions, regrettably, maybe not. My statement was simply in recognition of that fact and it was to by no means trivialise or dismiss the importance or function of courts of law in our society.
I’m not necessarily saying that fact has any consequence or bearing in this particular case either as I am, similarly, by no means qualified or in any position to offer a certain verdict as to Evans’ guilt. Determinations by a court of law do carry very significant social weight, however, and we, as a pragmatic civilised society (myself included), broadly put our faith in those courts in recognition that they are the most effective method of ensuring the service of justice and of determining the facts of cases so that legal judgments can be made about those facts. A court’s finding will always remain just a judgment on or an interpretation of available evidence and alleged fact rather than a categorical statement or confirmation of absolute truth. If the judgment conforms with the truth, that’s good, but, if not, that’s not so good. We can't attach to a judgment some absolute status simply because we might be so repulsed by the specific act under question and are keen to stress our revulsion in absolute, uncategorical terms as a result.
I was speaking generally to demonstrate why such emotive, loaded and presumptuous language as Dodge had used can be unhelpful and dangerous, because if we are to presuppose that a court's word is absolutely true and correct simply because it says it is so, then it theoretically or tautologically renders any decision of that court absolutely irreversible because the reversal of a decision would be to admit the potential for error. That would be inherently paradoxical. Of course, we know that practical error is possible, and it would be a very grim society in which to live where the legal system absolutely assumed its own theoretical and practical infallibility with no recourse for the overturning of wrongful convictions. It doesn't mean I personally think Evans might have been innocent until a court said otherwise though. I’m in no position to offer any such verdict on his case. I'm just referring to a court's determination. That's all we're in a position to comment on here, unless we witnessed the incident or have an omniscient ability to have mind-read both Evans and the girl involved. Instead, we put faith in the fallible court and justice system - it's the best we have - but I'm not sure we can speak in such absolute terms.
You seem to be saying with absolute certainty that he is guilty though. How do you know that to be true? From where have you attained such knowledge? Haven’t you made a determination yourself based upon the determination of the court? On the basis of probability, your determination might well conform to the facts, but, I’m not sure what qualifies you to say you absolutely know he is guilty. You have a belief based on your perception and an interpretation of what you understand happened, but then there is the truth, which is a separate entity. Indeed, the two may overlap, but they are still distinct and one should not necessarily be assumed to be the same as the other.
I hope I’ve explained that coherently as I’m not sure I have the philosophical vocabulary to truly do justice to what I’m trying to articulate there. Or maybe I'm just needlessly complicating matters.
The fact you admit that even in their minority there are far too many of them should convince you that a court's word can/should never be assumed to be infallible. Anyhow that’s a separate discussion and I’m not trying to suggest there has been a miscarriage of justice here.Yes, there are miscarriages of justice, too many of them. But they're a tiny minority of cases. The man is guilty. If he believes there's been a miscarriage of justice then I hope he's actually doing something about it, rather than actually just telling people that's the case.
The man was found guilty by a court of law. Can you so surely proclaim "the accused is guilty" in all cases where a court determines the accused guilty or is it just this one for some reason? If it’s just this one, why is that exactly? Would you have said of, say, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six that they were absolutely guilty prior to the overturnings simply and solely on the basis of a court having determined them to be guilty in law? I would think and hope not.
As far as Evans is concerned, I understand he has employed a new legal team to fight his case and help him clear his name. This certainly isn’t me fighting some sort of case for him. I’m content to accept the verdict of the court, like yourself, and if he wants to clear his name, he’s entitled to try that. I couldn't care less for him personally, to be honest.
Maybe so, but, as you say, that’s no good reason to flirt with its dismissal. The legal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is another vital cornerstone of criminal justice and due process in civilised, democratic societies; I suppose the rationale behind it is that your scenario is the lesser of what one might call the two evils. The greater evil would be innocent persons being convicted on much flimsier grounds than those required by the law at present.
I'm aware he freely acknowledges he engaged in a sexual act, but the question of whether or not consent was given is what the court's determination rested upon. The question of consent (or lack thereof) is what determined the alleged criminality of the act. Just because he committed a sexual act doesn't mean he is legally guilty of rape. You’ve also declared him absolutely guilty. Do you know that consent was absent and, if so, how do you know?He's not arguing he didn't commit the acts BTW, he's arguing over signalling consent.
If you think I’m trying to dismiss the court’s findings, by the way, I’m not at all. I’m just saying it’s a determination. It may well be a very sound determination, although I’m not in a position to say with certainty.
Bookmarks