A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 1, Introduction and the Argument From Ignorance)

Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen

[CobaltBlue]

But common law does not require a finding of innocent. The accused has no obligation to prove actual innocence. The burden is on the state to prove guilt. It's binary, guilt or not-guilt.

Not-guilt isn't the same as innocent. Well and good. But not-guilt is all that's required.

This is entirely different than proving the truth or falsity of a proposition.

I think what's acting as the attractor in this argument is the similarity to the fact that scientists can't prove that natural laws occur all the time, either, at least that's the way I understand it. Somehow the fact that the sun rises in the east is subject to scientific dispute in a way that logic and mathematics have no difficulty with.

But the law doesn't require a prosecutor to prove guilt with the same level that science requires a scientist to prove causation. If, for example, the police find a man on top of a woman who is struggling to get away, the law doesn't require the jury to consider that he might have been praying for her.

[donh]

Not-guilt isn't the same as innocent. Well and good. But not-guilt is all that's required.

I would argue to the contrary. I think

NOT(guilty()) = innocent

and

NOT(innocent()) = guilty

is a pretty reasonably accurate summation of the state of closure concerning these sets of qualities. All fiddles about partial guilt, or sociatal guilt aside.

If the law was serious about accurate usage, and not serious about double jeopardy, the law would succumb to a previous gentleman's argument about using the scottish phrase, "not proved guilty". For then, your argument would hold: the opposite of "not proved guilty" isn't the same thing as "proved innocent".

But, that isn't what the law says--what the law says is "not guilty". The opposite of "not guilty" is, in fact, innocent.

But, that aside, my argument is a moral one, not a set-theoretic one, and it is an argument pitched against the assumption you make that "not guilty" really means "not proved guilty".

If the state, in it's wisdom, devotes its full force and authority into proving you guilty, and fails, the morally correct assumption, in a state you don't want to see being run by tyrants at their own whim, is that you are innocent. Otherwise the principle of double jeopardy has no teeth, and it should have teeth. The state can keep you a virtual prisoner, and bankrupt you at trial, whether you are repeatedly "not found guilty" or not; you do not pose a similar threat to the state.

[Hank Kerchief]

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

Ad ignorantiam fallacy - (argument from ignorance). Asserting the truth of any proposition on the basis that what is asserted has never disproved or what is denied has never been proved; or that there is no evidence for the thing denied, or, against what is asserted.

Debate about the mystic, paranormal, or occult proceed largely by arguing ad ignorantiam. The fallacy also forms the basis for most medical quackery tricked up with a lot of medical jargon.

Examples:

"It has never been proved, nor can it be, that clairvoyance does not exist, therefore, it must exist." "It has never been proved, nor can it be, that clairvoyance exists, therefore, it cannot exist."

"Studies show that many people using fibrilopymesium hypochloride recover completely from their diseases. No study has ever failed to show this." There is no proof it doesn't work, therefore it must work. "Studies show that some people using fibrilopymesium hypochloride never recover from their diseases. Every study shows this." There is no proof it does work, therefore, it must not work.

Argument from ignorance is obviously very useful.

Hank

[stuartcr]

Change it to...'Debate about religion proceeds solely by arguing ad ignorantiam.' This is the only way it can be done....that's why we will never get an answer.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nice post.

[tacticalogic]

Change it to...'Debate about religion proceeds solely by arguing ad ignorantiam.' This is the only way it can be done....that's why we will never get an answer.

Dogma is, by definition, immune to reason.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

[stuartcr]

Even when self-evidence differs between peoples?

[tacticalogic]

Apparently. As long as "We hold these truths to be self-evident" then whatever standard of self evidence you have will, when applied to the question result in a finding of truth.

[stuartcr]

So I guess, in some things there are multiple truths?...sounds relative to me.

[tacticalogic]

Multiple truths, or just multiple ways of arriving at the same truths?

[stuartcr]

I would say multiple truths, because people probably use the same method to discover self-evident truths, yet their results may differ.

[tacticalogic]

Either way, once you get into the realm of dogma, wheather you want to call it faith or self-evident truth, it's still immune to reason. You either believe it or you don't, but you can't test it. Reason doesn't invalidate faith anymore that faith invalidates reason.

[stuartcr]

That's what makes it so interesting...immunity to reason, yet people still defend it to the death...wonder why?

[tacticalogic]

wonder why?

Nope. Gave it up. Once I realized it was immune to reason I knew it was a fool's errand.

[stuartcr]

Roger that, that's one of the things that makes freerepublic so interesting.

[CobaltBlue]

The intermediate step between guilt and innocence is familiar territory to lawyers and judges. People land on that square all the time.

First time offenders, for example, can plead nolo contendere and do community service and get the charge dismissed after a relatively short length of time, say six months for a misdemeanor and a year or two for a felony.

Lawyers and judges don't really think about actual innocence, they just think about consequences. Perhaps because it is extremely rare for an innocent person to make it to trial, everybody just assumes that the accused is guilty. So the presumption of innocence doesn't mean that anybody actually thinks he's innocent, except the jury, maybe.

Most of the time people get off on technicalities. To me, the presumption of innocence is a kind of technicality.

As an example of a technicality, a blood test cannot be admitted into evidence if the technician who ran it let his license lapse, even if it were just for a day, even if it were due to a mistake at the license bureau. The law requires the license. Without a blood test, the crime can't be proved. Maybe to you, that means that the person is innocent, but not to me.

[LogicWings]

Asserting the truth of any proposition on the basis that what is asserted has never disproved or what is denied has never been proved; or that there is no evidence for the thing denied, or, against what is asserted.

Boy, have I had enough of that lately to last a lifetime!

[donh]

Most of the time people get off on technicalities. To me, the presumption of innocence is a kind of technicality.

It doesn't seem like so much of a technicality to me. It seems like a basic philosophical issue in jurisprudence. A point which, I readily concur, may be a matter of indifference to those trained in the pursuit of the law as she is practiced. The presumption of innocence gives motivation for the rule of double jeopardy--which means that the law can't continue trying me over and over until it exhausts my funds and/or my life, or finds a jury more to it's liking.

[CobaltBlue]

Ya'll keep sliding past the meaning of "presumption". In this context, the presumption of innocence is a presumption of law, not fact. A presumption of law may well fly in the face of objective fact or be contrary to objective fact.

For example, frequently cited, the murder case against O.J. Simpson. Objectively speaking, the jury was too stupid or too biased to understand and accept the evidence against O.J.

BTW, the prohibition against double jeopardy really rests more on the prohibition against retrying a matter which has already been adjudicated once, res judicata. But this is not absolute. For example, a person who unlawfully uses a firearm to commit a felony, to wit, burglary, can be tried twice, once for burglary and once for unlawful use of a firearm. If the defendand appeals a conviction, and it is reversed, he can still be retried in most cases.

The double jeopardy clause prohibits the following: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. Appeals do not terminate the original jeopardy. Even if you are acquitted, in some states the prosecutor can appeal and retry the case against you.

[donh]

BTW, the prohibition against double jeopardy really rests more on the prohibition against retrying a matter which has already been adjudicated once, res judicata.

Maybe to a lawyer. To me it rests in its specific enumeration in the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights is about restrictions of state power against the individual, not about judicial bean-counting.