Bill Cosby

[ZeroAX]

Is it worse to condemn an innocent man, or let a guilty man go free? That is a damned hard question to answer.

Not it isn't. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of justice in every liberal democracy. The opposite of that is what oppressive regimes use to imprison political opponents and people who express critisism, on the flimsiest of charges.

[jp1]

Is it worse to condemn an innocent man, or let a guilty man go free? That is a damned hard question to answer.

Not it isn't. Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of justice in every liberal democracy. The opposite of that is what oppressive regimes use to imprison political opponents and people who express critisism, on the flimsiest of charges.

Yeah, I forgot to add "for many people." to the end of that sentence. Although I agree with you and prsfnl_gmr on the topic, a lot of people do not. Even if it is the cornerstone of justice, it isn't taken seriously by nearly as many people as it should. I'm afraid that "Innocent until proven guilty" has become more of an ideal than a reality here in America. To a greater extent when it comes to the opinions and judgment of the public at large than when you are discussing the criminal justice system, but it applies to both in my opinion.

[Flake]

The likelihood that every accusation about Bill Cosby is true is not very high.

The likelihood that every accusation about Bill Cosby is false is not very high, either. There are simply too many detailed accounts.

Let's be generous to Mr. Cosby (as Dave has requested) and say that 90% of the accusations of rape against him are patently false. He's still a rapist.

[Erik_Twice]

Let's be generous to Mr. Cosby (as Dave has requested) and say that 90% of the accusations of rape against him are patently false. He's still a rapist.

That's the prosecutor's fallacy mixed with the awful idea that you can determine how many accussations are true without trial or proof.

[jp1]

The likelihood that every accusation about Bill Cosby is true is not very high.

The likelihood that every accusation about Bill Cosby is false is not very high, either. There are simply too many detailed accounts.

Let's be generous to Mr. Cosby (as Dave has requested) and say that 90% of the accusations of rape against him are patently false. He's still a rapist.

That's disappointing coming from you Flake. I say that as a compliment. Calling a man a rapist with nothing more than speculation is pretty ugly. It might not be likely that all those women are liars, but it is most certainly possible.

EDIT: Not trying to condescend here. I realize it could be interpreted like that...the comment just seemed out of character for you. I usually find your posts more thoughtful. However, your opinion is what it is.

[Exhuminator]

Let's be generous to Mr. Cosby (as Dave has requested) and say that 90% of the accusations of rape against him are patently false. He's still a rapist.

http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/criti ... ralization

http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/criti ... te-fallacy

[prfsnl_gmr]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nbc-ne ... d-r,37502/

http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/criti ... ralization

http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/criti ... te-fallacy

These are great tools for examining an argument's logical reasoning, but they provide no insight into weighing evidence and making conclusions based upon evidence. For those, you may wish to look at two of the oldest and most common jury instructions:

You are to decide whether the testimony of each of the witnesses is truthful and accurate, in part, in whole, or not at all, as well as what weight, if any, you give to the testimony of each witness. In evaluating the testimony of any witness, you may consider, among other things: the witness's age; the witness's intelligence; the ability and opportunity the witness had to see, hear, or know the things that the witness testified about; the witness's memory; any interest, bias, or prejudice the witness may have; the manner of the witness while testifying; and the reasonableness of the witness's testimony in light of all the evidence in the case.

and

You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in life. In our lives, we often look at one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists. In law we call this “inference.” A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences. Any inferences you make must be reasonable and must be based on the evidence in the case.

[Exhuminator]

These are great tools for examining an argument's logical reasoning, but they provide no insight into weighing evidence and making conclusions based upon evidence.

Accusations ≠ evidence. Probability ≠ evidence.

[jp1]

These are great tools for examining an argument's logical reasoning, but they provide no insight into weighing evidence and making conclusions based upon evidence.

Accusations ≠ evidence. Probability ≠ evidence.

At first those looked like equal signs because my screen resolution and/or font, and my mind was like, WTF...

However, I had read your previous post and realized they couldn't possibly.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nbc-ne ... d-r,37502/


These are great tools for examining an argument's logical reasoning, but they provide no insight into weighing evidence and making conclusions based upon evidence. For those, you may wish to look at two of the oldest and most common jury instructions:

I'm not about to argue the law with a lawyer, but isn't there a reason a case can't be substantiated on witness testimony alone? It seems the same should hold true in life.

[prfsnl_gmr]

These are great tools for examining an argument's logical reasoning, but they provide no insight into weighing evidence and making conclusions based upon evidence.

Accusations ≠ evidence. Probability ≠ evidence.

Actually, both accusations (i.e., testimony accusing someone of committing a crime) and probability (i.e., testimony regarding the probability of a fact being true in light of the circumstances) are evidence, and both would be admissible in a court of law to prove guilt...

I'm not about to argue the law with a lawyer, but isn't there a reason a case can't be substantiated on witness testimony alone? It seems the same should hold true in life.

No. There is no requirement of physical evidence, and many, many cases hinge exclusively on witness testimony. By way of example, think of a jaywalking case. The defendant states, "I used a crosswalk!" The arresting officer says, "He crossed in the middle of the street!" Another witness says, "I am pretty sure there was no crosswalk where he crossed the street." A fourth witness says, "I am certain there was no crosswalk where he crossed the street, but I have trouble seeing stripes." In these circumstances, it would be up to the jury to wigh the various witnesses' credibilty and decide if the defendant was guilty of jaywalking, and a video of the defendant crossing he street or other "physical" evidence of the crime is unnecesary for a guilty verdict.

Most rape cases also hinge on testimony since the determinative factor in most cases is consent. Short of an audio recording of the victim consenting to the act, it is hard to imagine what sort of physical evidence a defendant or prosecutor could produce to show consent, and as with the jaywalking case, juries must often determine the issue of consent based on the witnesses' testimony.