Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

The_Disciple · 02-07-2006, 04:42 PM

Let's see:

1) People in general do, yes, work pretty much as civil courts do. They pass their judgements based on what it seems to them has most likely happened. This is only reasonable.

2) Just as many civil court cases are overturned, so do people (including the forums crowd here) find that they've made their initial judgement in error and revise it.

3) While the burden of proof, such as it is, in an initial case is the responsibility of the prosecutor, to secure an appeal, the burden is upon the defendant to show that there's new evidence or some reason to re-examine the case.

And that's what you have here. A bunch of people, based on the preponderance of the evidence, have made their decision. They're exercising their human capacity for reason and making the best guess based on the information they have at hand. It is not unethical for one individual to treat another as guilty of something if they may reasonably conclude that they are. For them to reconsider and change their judgement (i.e., overturn/appeal), the burden is upon the defendant to show that there's reason to reconsider.

So far, that hasn't happened in this thread. Any arguments that have been offered have, depending on how you prefer to look at it, been found insufficient for an appeal or have led to an appeal that upheld the original decision.

02-07-2006, 04:42 PM	#89
The_Disciple Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 113	Let's see: 1) People in general do, yes, work pretty much as civil courts do. They pass their judgements based on what it seems to them has most likely happened. This is only reasonable. 2) Just as many civil court cases are overturned, so do people (including the forums crowd here) find that they've made their initial judgement in error and revise it. 3) While the burden of proof, such as it is, in an initial case is the responsibility of the prosecutor, to secure an appeal, the burden is upon the defendant to show that there's new evidence or some reason to re-examine the case. And that's what you have here. A bunch of people, based on the preponderance of the evidence, have made their decision. They're exercising their human capacity for reason and making the best guess based on the information they have at hand. It is not unethical for one individual to treat another as guilty of something if they may reasonably conclude that they are. For them to reconsider and change their judgement (i.e., overturn/appeal), the burden is upon the defendant to show that there's reason to reconsider. So far, that hasn't happened in this thread. Any arguments that have been offered have, depending on how you prefer to look at it, been found insufficient for an appeal or have led to an appeal that upheld the original decision.