References: In message , Fred J.
> McCall writes
>> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>>> How are the facts brought to life? At the trial. Therefore it
>> :_completely_ upon what happens at the trial.
>> The facts aren't "brought to life". The facts are.
> And how can they be detected, measured and quantified?
>> They are merely
>> examined, such as they may be known, at trial. This is the
>> difference between being guilty of the crime (in fact) and being
>> FOUND guilty (in law).
> One of a number of differences.
>>> And how is "What actually happened" identified? In the court.
>> Identified. What actually happened does not change due to mistakes
>> or ignorance in court.
> And is also remarkably immune to repeatable, scientific analysis. We
> go with the courtroom as the method of determination because all the
> other alternatives are worse.
>>> Your concept is marvellously metaphysical, since you insist on an
>>> absolutist determination which apparently springs into existence...
>>> but cannot then be detected or measured. So what use is it?
>> I fear that your interpretation is the metaphysical one. Only
>> reality as interpreted through a court exists under your 'rules'.
>> This is manifestly silly, as the simplest thought experiment shows.
> Okay - show me a reliable repeatable test for guilt.
>>> Whereas elsewhere you can be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder.
>>> It seems these intangible philosophical constructs are extremely
>> Yes, the law varies from place to place.
> So "guilt" is a relative concept, not an absolute?
>> Consider this simple thought experiment. Suppose that I am indeed in
>> your hypothetical jurisdiction where defense of property is not
> Allowed, even encouraged (more so than tabloid reporting admits), but
> "shoot first and shoot often" is very strongly discouraged.
>> and I shoot the burglar. We then go to court for trial and I
>> further lie under oath about what happened, explaining to the court
>> that I was in fear for my life and therefore shooting him was simple
>> self defense. Suppose further that the court believes my statements
>> contrary to the fact and finds me innocent.
>> Your position is that no crime was therefore committed.
> As far as the law is concerned, that's absolutely true.
> Your personal guilt or innocence is a matter for your own conscience.
>> My position is that TWO crimes were committed; the original shooting
>> and the perjury to cover it up. I merely wasn't caught committing
> Again, how do you propose to detect these crimes, without false
> False accusations are cheap and easy.
>> Your position is that taken by criminal sociopaths. There is no
>> 'fact', no 'right' and no 'wrong', no violations of any kind, and the
>> only crime is being caught and convicted.
> What a tasteless little tirade that was! Two monkeys for four minutes,
> must try harder.
> In that case, your position is that of the more fanatical religious
> zealots. There is apparently an absolute and inviolable standard,
> which you are privy to (and others are not) which allows you to
> declare "guilt" or "innocence" without hearing, defence or redress.
> And only the chosen few (meaning, those who share your prejudices)
> are privy to this judgement.
>>> So, how do you detect these crimes?
>> Detection is irrelevant to what happened.
> It's completely relevant to reacting to what has happened. Once again,
> your construct of "guilt" remains a chimera that has no relevance to
>> Your argument is that a
>> tree falling in the forrest creates no compression waves in the
>> atmosphere if no one is there to hear it.
> Did the tree fall, or was it felled, if there was nobody there to
> observe other than the putative axeman?
> It's easy to judge that there's a fallen tree. Did it rot through and
> fall, was it criminally cut down, or did a forester take it down to
> thin the canopy for younger growth?
> How can the metaphysical truth be accessed and used, and what use is
> it if it's beyond mortal grasp?
>> I maintain that the
>> compression waves still existed, regardless of the presence of a
> Plenty of evidence that trees make noise when they fall. Unless you
> chop it down in a vacuum, every time you drop a tree you get plenty
> of noise. Has _anyone_ cut down a tree in silence?
> But was it felled lawfully or unlawfully? Was it a forester carefully
> and regretfully thinning the woods, or some peasant hacking down a
> healthy tree in a protected for firewood?
> There may well be some metaphysical construct of "guilt" that answers
> the last paragraph, but how do we access that information?
>>> I'd suggest that if you're beating your chest to defend something
>>> that can't be identified, detected or measured in any way, you're
>>> really just indulging in mental masturbation until you come up with
>>> a workable Detect-a-Crime device.
>> And I'd suggest this is just Paul Adam looking for another wrangle
>> and that perhaps he should endeavour to get a life, instead.
> Evasion noted. If you can't detect or analyse this concept, what use
> is it?
> If it can't be measured and has no detectable element, then you're
> into theology rather than law or science. You _believe_ there is some
> absolute concept of "guilt": fine. How can a sceptical observer test
> for it?
>>> That's Heisenberg, not Schroedinger.
>> It's both. Heisenberg says you can't look without affecting the
>> thing you're looking at. That "probability function" I mentioned
>> collapsing is the Schroedinger equations collapsing to a specific
> Heisenberg pointed out that to observe, you had to bounce energy off
> the particle and thus change it. So you can know where it is, or its
> energy state, but never both (subject to lots of equations about how
> exact the knowledge of either could be)
> Schroedinger pointed out that _to an observer_ the cat-in-the-box
> exists in a quantum wave state until the box is opened. Inside the
> box, the cat is either dead or alive, but from the outside there is
> no way to know until we observe.
> You don't change the reality of what's in the box by looking at it
> (except by the Heisenberg changes of letting light in, but a typical
> cat has enough mass that for day-to-day purposes that's irrelevant -
> at least if the one sleeping on my lap is any example) but you _do_
> change your perception of it from 'unknown' to 'known'. Until you
> somehow observe the inside of the box, there's no way to know if the
> atom has decayed and the cat has died.
> The problem with your "absolute guilt" concept is that there's no way
> to open the box and look at the cat.
>>> It does, though, change which facts are presented, which are
>>> admitted as material, and which are rejected.
>> Yes, but that's irrelevant to what ACTUALLY happened. Your view
>> seems to be that 'spin' is reality.
> It's the reality that decides "some shall be pardoned, and some shall
> be punished". It decides who is acquitted, who is convicted, and how
> severely the convicts are treated. It's the difference between being
> acquitted and being executed.
> Remind me again how your metaphysical guilt affects real life?
>>> Conveniently undetectable.
>> Irrelevant statement. Mere 'spin' on your part.
> Absolutely essential. Show me a "guilt detector". If you can't
> reliably detect it, you can't use it.
> Are we going to replace jury trial with "Guiltfinder Generals" or
> Azande poison oracles?
>>> And it wasn't perjury, however much you want to insist it was.
>> How do you know? Was he tried and acquitted?
> Charges were considered and not brought.
> Considering the evidence made available, I believe he skated past a
> sloppy question and deliberately misled the court without actually
> lying. A dishonourable thing to do, but not the crime of perjury.
> Legally, he's innocent. Slimy, but innocent.
>> If I shoot you and am
>> not charged, are you still alive?
> Quite possibly. (Are you falling into the fallacy that to shoot
> someone, is automatically to kill them?)
> Assuming you shot and killed me: are you a murderer, was it
> manslaughter, was it self-defence, or were you mentally ill and thus
> neither able to form _mens rea_ nor be released back into the
> community? How do you convince that it _was_ lawful self-defence,
> rather than brutal murder? The "truth" as you percieved it may well
> exist, but it is elusive, observer-oriented, resists elicitation and
> is thus of limited relevance.
>>> It _was_ unethical and misleading, but it was legal. If he hadn't
>>> been a lawyer he'd have got away clean (except if he hadn't been a
>>> lawyer he wouldn't have thought of it in the first place)
>> No, there were outright lies.
> Name them. Clearly. Exactly what did he lie about?
>> The fact that he wasn't charged doesn't
>> mean he didn't commit the crime.
> It does mean that there is a distinct lack of proof that he committed
> the crime, despite an excellent opportunity to charge and convict him
> had such proof existed.
>> By your notion, all those uncaught
>> perpetrators out there have committed no crimes.
> Legally and in the strictest sense, that's correct. Doesn't preclude
> grabbing them as soon as evidence becomes available to link them to
> their deeds, though. (It also requires as a counterbalance the
> double-jeopardy protection)
> "Innocence" is a presumption that requires contradiction: in the US
> and UK, usually by trial. It doesn't _prevent_ contradiction in any
>> Rather leaves one
>> wondering how you interpret the phrase "unsolved crime".
> There's a perpetrator out there who hasn't been caught yet, and needs
> to be sought out and placed before a court along with sufficient
> evidence to convince a jury of his/her peers that there is no
> reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
Why, based on what you and Vince are saying no crime has been committed. So
there can be no perpetrator.
On a simpler level, running a red light is a strict liability offense. That
is, No intent is required. So either you did or didn't. Which I think this
whole overly long threat is about.
The world does not operate in a vacuum. In reality people commit crimes (as
defined in every legal dictionary and law school text and several codes) and
are never arrested. That does not change the fact the a violation of the
> Why, how do _you_ define it?
> The trouble being, that we lack reliable Guilt Detectors and have to
> rely on the courts for that purpose. Like democracy for government,
> it's a terrible system, saved only by the fact that all the
> alternatives are worse.