Norms concerning juridicial proof

[Paleocon]

For unofficial consideration:

No person shall be convicted of a crime except when the matter is proven by means of the unwavering testimony of two witnesses who are above all suspicion, by physical proof, by confession, by legal presumption, or by a public document. The same applies to other extremely important cases.

In cases of lesser importance, the testimony of two witnesses who are not unwavering or above all suspicion may be sufficient. Two private documents may also be sufficient in such cases.

In cases where no one is harmed, the testimony of one witness or one document may suffice in place of two.

Experts are considered a form of physical evidence. No one may be an expert in any case who is not above all suspicion.

A person is above all suspicion when they have no manifest reason to lie. The testimony of the parties, children under the age of fourteen, and the mentally disabled cannot be considered above all suspicion.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

For unofficial consideration:

No person shall be convicted of a crime except when the matter is proven by means of the unwavering testimony of two witnesses who are above all suspicion, by physical proof, by confession, by legal presumption, or by a public document. The same applies to other extremely important cases.

In cases of lesser importance, the testimony of two witnesses who are not unwavering or above all suspicion may be sufficient. Two private documents may also be sufficient in such cases.

In cases where no one is harmed, the testimony of one witness or one document may suffice in place of two.

Experts are considered a form of physical evidence. No one may be an expert in any case who is not above all suspicion.

A person is above all suspicion when they have no manifest reason to lie. The testimony of the parties, children under the age of fourteen, and the mentally disabled cannot be considered above all suspicion.

Is this a topic covered in our current Constitution?

 

[Paleocon]

Is this a topic covered in our current Constitution?

No, it isn't.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

No, it isn't.

Then why does it need to be added? Surely there is a problem that merits your interest.

 

[Paleocon]

Then why does it need to be added? Surely there is a problem that merits your interest.

According to the Aristotelian philosophical tradition, to convict a man on one witness's testimony is not allowed. Yet it is allowed in our system.

 

[sangha]

I'm content with the jury system and the requirement to base a conviction on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

 

[paddymcdougall]

For unofficial consideration:

No person shall be convicted of a crime except when the matter is proven by means of the unwavering testimony of two witnesses who are above all suspicion, by physical proof, by confession, by legal presumption, or by a public document. The same applies to other extremely important cases.

In cases of lesser importance, the testimony of two witnesses who are not unwavering or above all suspicion may be sufficient. Two private documents may also be sufficient in such cases.

In cases where no one is harmed, the testimony of one witness or one document may suffice in place of two.

Experts are considered a form of physical evidence. No one may be an expert in any case who is not above all suspicion.

A person is above all suspicion when they have no manifest reason to lie. The testimony of the parties, children under the age of fourteen, and the mentally disabled cannot be considered above all suspicion.

Quite frankly, given the studies on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, I think we need physical evidence. People are not reliable.

And children under the age of fourteen often give testimony in sexual abuse trials; so need to be careful about that.

 

[Paleocon]

I'm content with the jury system and the requirement to base a conviction on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Do you understand that there's no legal definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? It's whatever a jury says it is.

Quite frankly, given the studies on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, I think we need physical evidence. People are not reliable.

And children under the age of fourteen often give testimony in sexual abuse trials; so need to be careful about that.

Actually forensics can also be prone to error, DNA is the only solid evidence.*

But should we put someone way on the word of a young child? Or on the word of one adult, and a young child? Young children can more easily be coaxed into lying if someone tries to get them to do so. Of course if there's DNA, then that would suffice. I absolutely detest child abusers, but the heinousness of the crime is not a reason to unduly risk the imprisonment of an innocent person.

*Source: a frontline documentary "the real CSI"

 

[paddymcdougall]

Do you understand that there's no legal definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? It's whatever a jury says it is.



Actually forensics can also be prone to error, DNA is the only solid evidence.*

But should we put someone way on the word of a young child? Or on the word of one adult, and a young child? Young children can more easily be coaxed into lying if someone tries to get them to do so. Of course if there's DNA, then that would suffice. I absolutely detest child abusers, but the heinousness of the crime is not a reason to unduly risk the imprisonment of an innocent person.

*Source: a frontline documentary "the real CSI"

I totally agree convicting people on the word of a child can be problematic, especially when encouraged by police. The McMartin case jumps to mind....

While I'm all for the right to a fair trial in the constitution, the definition of what is "fair" may need to be left up to the Attorney General or someone like that, based on the state of technology that year.

 

[sangha]

Do you understand that there's no legal definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? It's whatever a jury says it is.

Yes, I do. I've witnessed well over a hundred trials and been involved in many others. For someone who isn't a lawyer,I think I have a pretty clear idea of how it works, and what's involved.

ANd it's not that what you proposed is horrible. It's just that I've come to the conclusion that there is no perfect solution.

 

[Paleocon]

I totally agree convicting people on the word of a child can be problematic, especially when encouraged by police. The McMartin case jumps to mind....

While I'm all for the right to a fair trial in the constitution, the definition of what is "fair" may need to be left up to the Attorney General or someone like that, based on the state of technology that year.

So would you agree that the testimony of one witness should not be allowed?

 

[paddymcdougall]

So would you agree that the testimony of one witness should not be allowed?

It depends on the witness, I guess. I'm sorry for such a weaselly answer, but there are times one witness may be sufficient (i.e. a spouse who is nearly killed by his/her spouse, where physical evidence backs up the witness)

I'm reminded of a case in a company I worked for - four separate women told HR that a manager sexually harassed them; they each gave similar examples of things he said to them. HR said that they couldn't do anything about the manager because each individual instance of harassment was only witnessed by the woman involved.

(company got sued, ended up settling out of court)