What should be done with cheats ? Part 5 :-(

Started Mar 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 1,474
Re: What should be done with cheats ? Part 5 :-(
In reply to ConanFuji, May 24, 2013

ConanFuji wrote:

ConanFuji wrote:

Actually the system convicts a defendant when he is proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt."

It's not good to convict someone because there is "reasonable doubt".

That's why Iraq has burned to the ground .... because there the President of the United States, GW Bush had some reasonable doubt that Saddam wasn't honouring his word on not producing WMD.  (That's all a play anyway, because the whole shbang was to raid Iraq's oil with his Haliburtn friend.)

Clear, Mr. Veteran?

Slynky wrote:


So, that's why we in the US tend to use the phrase, "reasonable doubt"

From Wikipedia,

Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.

Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty.

It should also be noted that this is the standard of proof in criminal proceedings. In many other proceedings the standard of proof is lower - eg 'on the balance of probabilities'. It's appropriate to demand a high standard of proof when someone's liberty is at stake. However, when the worst that's going to happen to them is that they get banned (probably very temporarily) from DPR, then a lower standard of proof is appropriate.

In my opinion, I think at least some of the evidence presented here would even meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow