Pram Rage Incident
 

On 2 Mar 2011 15:06:04 GMT
Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But for most normal people the evidence against Hitler
would be absolutely rock solid.

That's kinda the problem with your whole line of logic, though.

You want to raise the bar PAST "Beyond _Reasonable_ Doubt". That can ONLY
introduce UNREASONABLE doubt as a block to prosecution.

"beyond reasonable doubt" is just vacuous legalese that doesn't actually
mean anything.

If there is solid incontravertable proof of guilt then thats all thats needed.
And I've already said what that is so don't ask again.

Or just do it the american way - bang them up for 20 years or however long it
is and if no opposing evidence comes along in that time then its off
down to the chair.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

Pram Rage Incident
 

On 2 Mar 2011 15:20:17 GMT
Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But for most normal people the evidence against Hitler would be
absolutely rock solid.

That's kinda the problem with your whole line of logic, though.

You want to raise the bar PAST "Beyond _Reasonable_ Doubt". That can
ONLY introduce UNREASONABLE doubt as a block to prosecution.

"beyond reasonable doubt" is just vacuous legalese that doesn't actually
mean anything.

Don't be daft, man. It's plain bloody English.

Its also meaningless because theres no such thing as "unreasonable doubt".
If anyone has a doubt then to them its not unreasonable. Beyond reasonable
doubt simply means no doubt at all.

If there is solid incontravertable proof of guilt then thats all thats
needed.

The absence of reasonable doubt, y'mean?

Quite.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

Pram Rage Incident
 

On 2 Mar 2011 15:53:06 GMT
Adrian wrote:
Don't be daft, man. It's plain bloody English.

Its also meaningless because theres no such thing as "unreasonable
doubt". If anyone has a doubt then to them its not unreasonable.

So the 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers are merely exercising
reasonable doubt?

From their point of view perhaps, not from anyone elses.

Beyond reasonable doubt simply means no doubt at all.

So how come you're arguing in favour of a stronger test?

*sigh*. Logically thats what "beyond reasonable doubt" means but what the
court means is "only a tiny amount of doubt".

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

Pram Rage Incident
 

On 2 Mar 2011 16:02:40 GMT
Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Don't be daft, man. It's plain bloody English.

Its also meaningless because theres no such thing as "unreasonable
doubt". If anyone has a doubt then to them its not unreasonable.

So the 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers are merely exercising
reasonable doubt?

From their point of view perhaps, not from anyone elses.

So they would, or wouldn't fail "beyond reasonable doubt"?

I've explained everything well enough for anyone with a working brain to
understand. I'm not getting into yet another some pointless circular argument
with you.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

Pram Rage Incident
 

In message , d
writes
As I've already said, the death penality should require a higher standard
of proof than is currently employed in a conviction but that doesn't mean
it shouldn't be used at all IMO.
Because the sentence is absolute, so should the proof be. How?
--
Clive

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Mar 3, 9:36*pm, Clive wrote:
In message ,
writesAs I've already said, the death penality should require a higher standard
of proof than is currently employed in a conviction but that doesn't mean
it shouldn't be used at all IMO.

Because the sentence is absolute, so should the proof be. * How?
--
Clive

Someone has been arrested in relation to this incident

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12680468