Add new comment

"The phrase “evidence/proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” implies reasonable doubt is what would keep one from condemnation?

Wait... are you dense? No it's due to concordance of evidence which places the accused as the only *possible* culprit. The problem is not with the rational process leading to this conclusion, but how the process is contaminated by interests, and how the pigs are allowed to fuck up the evidence, and using a magic wand to transform whatever bullshit into legit evidence.

The failure of this process in the legal system is due to the real dynamics of the courts, not merely to the flaws in the notion of "evidence, or even the way it is supposed to be combine. It is absurdly assumed in the democratic system that all parties on an equal ground yet they aren't. Judges can be elected, but that's all. They're performatively held as demi-gods. Cops neither have gotta pay lawyers out of their own pockets, unlike the accused randos, and won't have to reveal their home address in court. They don't even fucking pay parking space outside of court!

But even on fair ground, evidence is rarely easy to prove and put together. Accusing someone of sexual harassment is extremely hard to prove without a third party (or "ally"), no matter how the accusation is legit. Which is why it can lead to forgery with the aims of just excluding people we don't like.