Political Theory

Re: The Contribution of Testimony to the Standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

JCFolsom — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:40:40 GMT

Spideynw:
Um, a potential rapist never actually committed rape. Whereas, if you kill someone, you did kill them. So I think you meant to say if a rapist cannot be convicted for rape, you cannot be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.

Nah, man, by potential rapist, I mean someone actively trying to rape. He's only "potential" because you spill the SOB's innards first.

Re: The Contribution of Testimony to the Standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

Inquisitor — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:37:17 GMT

Yes, but it's done to a disproportionate level. Unfortunately I'm not an admin, so I can't really do much about it.

Re: The Contribution of Testimony to the Standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

Spideynw — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:17:14 GMT

JCFolsom:

PPS Geez, for a rather libertarian, adult website, y'all sure are sensitive about things regarding "dirty" words. It's like those ham-handed library filters that won't let you see a site about wild donkeys because they have the word ass in them. Oh, look, I got bleeped. [UPDATE: THEY ACTUALLY DON'T BLEEP ASS] I mean, my last posting was talking about *** implants. I can't say ***? Apparently not. What if I have a *** in my armor. I'll see if you bleep that. Maybe I'll go eat some saur ***. Nothing like fermented cabbage, after all!

Any reputable forum should restrict language. It lends credibility to the forum.

Re: The Contribution of Testimony to the Standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

Spideynw — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:07:47 GMT

JCFolsom:

If a potential rapist can't be convicted for rape, you can't be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.

Um, a potential rapist never actually committed rape. Whereas, if you kill someone, you did kill them. So I think you meant to say if a rapist cannot be convicted for rape, you cannot be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.

However, even this line of reasoning is flawed. Just because I accuse someone of a crime, that does not give me permission to kill them, or even harm them in any way, shape, or form. Otherwise, if I wanted to kill someone, I could just accuse them of a crime and then kill them.

Re: The Contribution of Testimony to the Standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

JCFolsom — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:43:28 GMT

PPS Geez, for a rather libertarian, adult website, y'all sure are sensitive about things regarding "dirty" words. It's like those ham-handed library filters that won't let you see a site about wild donkeys because they have the word ass in them. Oh, look, I got bleeped. [UPDATE: THEY ACTUALLY DON'T BLEEP ASS] I mean, my last posting was talking about *** implants. I can't say ***? Apparently not. What if I have a *** in my armor. I'll see if you bleep that. Maybe I'll go eat some saur ***. Nothing like fermented cabbage, after all!

The Contribution of Testimony to the Standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

JCFolsom — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:38:44 GMT

I believe that true and reliable justice is not attainable by statist systems, or at least has not been achieved by any "Justice Systems" proposed to this point. The problem I see is that many convictions are gained by various testimonies, including the testimony of "experts". The problem, as I see it, is twofold:

It is quite easy for people, even the aforementioned "experts", to be mistaken. This must be seriously considered as introducing reasonable doubt into any testimony.
It is quite easy for literally anyone to lie, regardless of what bundle of paper they swear an oath on. The capacity for dishonesty, in my opinion, must always be taken as introducing reasonable doubt. Therefore, I propose that no conviction, if testimony plays any role, can be without reasonable doubt, and therefore, we are always committing a logical and ethical error when we imprison/execute someone.

What does this imply? Carry a weapon, or at least learn to be one. Women, especially. The fact of the matter is, we are all responsible for our own protection. If a potential rapist can't be convicted for rape, you can't be convicted for spilling the SOB's innards, either.

The world of the Anarchist Paradise is the Wild West with internet.

PS I also think, given that they deprive someone of property, itself a form of violence, that civil cases should be held to the standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", as well. Just think of the lawsuits against, for instance, *** implant makers, for injuries that years later they are proved not liable for. Do they, or their insurance carriers, have any recourse? Tens of millions of dollars have been stolen on the basis of bogus, hyped-up "science".