No, but I think in this particular case, when there is no reason to believe they are lying and every reason to believe they are telling the truth, it’s reasonable to take them at their word.
The courts determine if a person is legally quilty of a crime; the reality of whether the person committed the crime is independent of the court’s decision.
Was Wyatt Earp tried?
Manda Jo–that’s one of the functions of the criminal justice sysrem–to determine when to accept a confession and when not to.
J66–I suppose you have some way for us to access “reality” through means other than the criminal justice system? If so please share. For the rest of us, there’s often no way to know what happened on some dark and stormy night, so we’ve invented the criminal justice system to determine what happened. You can disbelieve its pronouncements if you want to, but that doesn’t mean that you are siding with “reality.” It just means you’ve decided to believe other means of determining what happened rather than those our society has chosen to use.
Stop claiming to speak for “the rest of us”. The rest of us are all saying you’re wrong.
Crimes occur all the time without people being convicted of them. The criminal justice system is just one small aspect of determining the truth.
This confession was made to a national magazine after the trial, when the men were protected by double jeopardy. The function of historians is the weigh all the evidence and come up with a picture of what most likely happened. I mean, my god, do you think Joan of Arc committed willful heresy, or are modern historians allowed to speculate that she was maybe crazy?
But what you are missing is that, beyond “determining” the truth, the criminal justice system actually manufactures the truth (becauser it is the organ of our society that is tasked with creating truth with repect to whether people committed crimes). So it’s meaningless for you to talk about “what really happened in reality” in situations where you have no means other than the criminal jusrice system to determine that.
Well, historical analysis is just a special application of public opinion at a time when the criminal justice system has run its course. I think your example is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Are you seriously arguing that a court decision determines what occurred in the past?
Reality: the events that occurred
Court decision: one to twelve persons determination if the evidence presented warrants a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’
Correlation coefficient? I don’t know. I don’t care. That’s not my point.
Originally Posted by Heyoka13
Seems like Clinton dodged a bullet during his trial in the US Senate . . .
-
First of all, it doesnt matter if clinton was actually “charged” or tried, he still committed crimes and therefore clinton is a criminal for doing so. Clinton clearly committed perjury, among literally a dozen criminal accusations.
-
Secondly, the United States Senate “tried” clinton after clinton was impeached, and let him go.
-
Clinton also plea bargained and on his last day of office agreed to a 5-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine.
So what’s your method of determining reality other than a court decision? Please share with the rest of us unfortunates–all we have is the justice system out here. But it sounds like you have something better. Don’t hold back on us, now.
Maybe you don’t but most people aren’t so limited.
The criminal justice system does not manufacture or create truth. The truth exists. The system is designed to reveal it.
Once that truth is “revealed,” which actually has real-world consequences–the truth of “reality” that just “exists” or the truth according to the criminal justice system?
What do consequences have to do with it?
Who paid the consequences for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? Nobody was convicted of any crime involving their death.
Now rational people would say that two murders occurred but the person who committed the murders was never convicted. Or maybe he was never caught.
But by your theory, no crime had occurred. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman weren’t murdered because no court ever convicted anyone of their murder. And you’re saying the murder isn’t true until a court says it is.
Reality is not ‘determined’; reality ‘is’. The justice system is not designed to determine reality.
If you do not agree, please provide your definition of reality.
That … never mind.
Both the events that occurred and the court’s verdict have “real-world consequences.”
But, please, stop referring to ‘truth’ and the ‘criminal justice system’. The courts are designed to evaluate evidence, not to determine truth. I don’t believe any ethical lawyer or judge would disagree.