SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: epicure who wrote (104719)7/11/2003 12:14:01 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Suppose I witness a murder, and know the perpetrator. It has yet to be proven in a court of law, under existing rules of evidence. Now, suppose that there is no strong corroboration of my testimony, and the jury in unwilling to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt". Then the person who actually committed the murder will be deemed innocent. It is perfectly possible for something to not be proven, yet to be factual.

Now, the rendering of the verdict "not guilty" does not mean that the jury did not believe me. It means that it considered the evidence insufficient in a criminal court setting. Suppose we change venue, into a civil court for a wrongful death action. Then it is possible that the same case would be considered proven, under a relaxed standard ("preponderance of evidence"), and the defendant would have to pay the plaintiff.

There are various level of confidence between finding something incredible and finding it undeniable. That is what is "not binary"............
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News