General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,911 posts)

37. All I got was abstract rhetoric

Mon Nov 18, 2013, 08:51 AM

Nov 2013

The best you could come up with for a reason for the DP was "justice" and it didn't get any better from there.

Just sayin'

Beyond the shadow of a doubt is the strictest standard of proof. It requires that there be no doubt as to the issue. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need (nor can) reach this level. This phrase, has, nonetheless, come to be associated with the law in popular culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DEATH PENALTY I taught a peace and justice class this morning [View all] gopiscrap Nov 2013 OP

never ever. cali Nov 2013 #1

that was my take also gopiscrap Nov 2013 #2

Never. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #3

I've always been opposed. Blue_In_AK Nov 2013 #4

That surprises me actually. I would assume that state did. n-t Logical Nov 2013 #9

Our constitution is very progressive. Blue_In_AK Nov 2013 #10

Cool, thanks for the information!! n-t Logical Nov 2013 #13

Never, Ever. There are seconds when I feel some horrible person should die but then I know there... BlueJazz Nov 2013 #5

am·biv·a·lent GeorgeGist Nov 2013 #6

Against it. I will admit to wanting it, or thinking someone deserves it, or hoping for some kind of Brickbat Nov 2013 #7

No liberal should ever be for this. Disgusting. n-t Logical Nov 2013 #8

Exactly Major Nikon Nov 2013 #27

It should be rare. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #11

"certainty of agency" meaning what? n-t Logical Nov 2013 #14

Beyond all doubt - not just reasonable doubt. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #16

Wow, here we go again...... Logical Nov 2013 #21

yes, we've had this same conversation and it ended the same way. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #23

Your theory is silly. "If you are really really super duper sure, lets kill him". LOL. n-t Logical Nov 2013 #24

Here's how I see it Major Nikon Nov 2013 #41

Great point! +1000! nt Logical Nov 2013 #59

So how do you define that legally? Major Nikon Nov 2013 #28

With words. The same way we do other levels of confidence of evidence aikoaiko Nov 2013 #34

The words for that are "beyond a shadow of a doubt" Major Nikon Nov 2013 #35

Not impossible. But that's why the DP lshould be rare. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #36

All I got was abstract rhetoric Major Nikon Nov 2013 #37

"Widely considered" pipoman Nov 2013 #44

It doesn't mean the outlier is remotely pragmatic either Major Nikon Nov 2013 #47

Burden of proof IS an abstract concept. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #55

It is anything but Major Nikon Nov 2013 #63

What is the physical or concrete form of beyond reasonable doubt? aikoaiko Nov 2013 #64

Your question makes no sense Major Nikon Nov 2013 #65

I think we disagree on the meaning of some key words here, so... aikoaiko Nov 2013 #66

On that I can agree Major Nikon Nov 2013 #68

You sum up my former logic... sarisataka Nov 2013 #58

Truth be told -- I'm fine with my state or the US banning the DP aikoaiko Nov 2013 #61

Certain crimes are heinous enough to make me hesitate for a second. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #69

No DP, no exceptions, is my position petronius Nov 2013 #12

Exactly gopiscrap Nov 2013 #50

Very mixed feelings on this pipi_k Nov 2013 #15

Appeals to emotion work both ways Major Nikon Nov 2013 #29

I'm not pipi_k Nov 2013 #42

That's the way it is for most people Major Nikon Nov 2013 #46

One of the strangest pipi_k Nov 2013 #49

I agree Major Nikon Nov 2013 #62

IIRC that's what Matthew Shepard's parents did RE: his killers. Argued for life in prison nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #71

I don't judge them either. But it's with very good reason that we don't let them determine nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #70

Dead Man Walking undeterred Nov 2013 #17

Personally, I'm against it. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #18

Ummm... caraher Nov 2013 #19

Never. Killing is wrong, I don't care why. nt rrneck Nov 2013 #20

Morally, eh. But practically, no. sir pball Nov 2013 #22

I see it the same as you XRubicon Nov 2013 #67

Never LostOne4Ever Nov 2013 #25

For crimes of horror or terror Demeter Nov 2013 #26

Never. Two wrongs never make a right. Live and Learn Nov 2013 #30

Most people should have learned that lesson in grammar school Major Nikon Nov 2013 #31

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #32

+1 gollygee Nov 2013 #39

I fully agree gopiscrap Nov 2013 #52

Never. defacto7 Nov 2013 #33

No country that's remotely civilized does Major Nikon Nov 2013 #40

Never. Iggo Nov 2013 #38

Only for violent crimes against children. eom. Bad Thoughts Nov 2013 #43

Even in those cases, surely life without parole is better. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #48

Reforming criminal justice is something that should happen anyway Bad Thoughts Nov 2013 #54

Mixed feelings Calista241 Nov 2013 #45

Never for me. But I know a significant minority of Democrats are in favor just like your experience stevenleser Nov 2013 #51

I've always thought the discussion regarding DP in Judaism were worthwhile to read stevenleser Nov 2013 #53

People like Joseph Paul Franklin is why I support the Death Penalty, and always will. MicaelS Nov 2013 #56

The guy's going to spend the rest of his life in prison no matter what. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #72

Some folks just need to go away... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #57

Never. idwiyo Nov 2013 #60

My gut says "never," but the Constitution says it's permissible for treason. Laelth Nov 2013 #73