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

d 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.

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

The absence of reasonable doubt, y'mean?

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

d 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.

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

Beyond reasonable doubt simply means no doubt at all.

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

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

d 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"?

Who decides what's reasonable and what isn't? The jury? What if there's a
"truther" on the jury, and they convince the other jurors? Should that
jury's decision be over-ruled, because you don't find their decision
"reasonable"?

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".

So what you're saying is that the legal test is "beyond reasonable
doubt", and that you're happy that that's a perfectly plain English
language phrase - but it's just not what they actually mean?

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

d 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.

The only pointless circularity in this subthread is you trying
desperately to avoid admitting you've dug yourself another hole.

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".

So what you're saying is that the legal test is "beyond reasonable
doubt", and that you're happy that that's a perfectly plain English
language phrase - but it's just not what they actually mean?

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

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