Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Trial Standards of Evidence

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 3:44:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This was going to get covered in the 16k trial, but that went to sh*t.

I think it'd be good to establish exactly what kind of evidence would be needed for certain charges to be considered proven.

The trial was going in a "beyond all reasonable doubt" direction. Considering the poor ability to gather evidence, it may not be advisable for an informal internet trial to have such a high standard.

I believe it would be better to have standards of evidence we see in Civil cases as opposed to criminal cases.

In this case, the prosecutor wins if the preponderance of evidence favors the plaintiff. Once evidence is presented, the BOP shifts to defense to refute/rebut it. The jury must conclude there is a more than 50% probability of guilt.

Now, because we don't actually have a jury, the effect of this decision will be mainly psychological in how it frames whether voters will declare guilt or innocence.

Also, when you are thinking of standards of evidence, remember that we don't have a closed jury pool, and voting is largely dependent on mobilization (unlike a jury, you can't force DDOs to vote if they don't feel strongly).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 3:45:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, if you have some ideas for how to categorize possible charges (ex. multi, trolling, etc), we can also discuss whether different charges should have different burdens of proof.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 3:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 3:44:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
This was going to get covered in the 16k trial, but that went to sh*t.

I think it'd be good to establish exactly what kind of evidence would be needed for certain charges to be considered proven.

The trial was going in a "beyond all reasonable doubt" direction. Considering the poor ability to gather evidence, it may not be advisable for an informal internet trial to have such a high standard.

I believe it would be better to have standards of evidence we see in Civil cases as opposed to criminal cases.

In this case, the prosecutor wins if the preponderance of evidence favors the plaintiff. Once evidence is presented, the BOP shifts to defense to refute/rebut it. The jury must conclude there is a more than 50% probability of guilt.

Now, because we don't actually have a jury, the effect of this decision will be mainly psychological in how it frames whether voters will declare guilt or innocence.

Also, when you are thinking of standards of evidence, remember that we don't have a closed jury pool, and voting is largely dependent on mobilization (unlike a jury, you can't force DDOs to vote if they don't feel strongly).

Beyond reasonable doubt is the better classification. When facts come to facts, reasonable doubt is the best boundary, in my opinion. The percentile, however, is not a great classification imo.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 3:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 3:44:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
This was going to get covered in the 16k trial, but that went to sh*t.

I think it'd be good to establish exactly what kind of evidence would be needed for certain charges to be considered proven.

The trial was going in a "beyond all reasonable doubt" direction. Considering the poor ability to gather evidence, it may not be advisable for an informal internet trial to have such a high standard.

I believe it would be better to have standards of evidence we see in Civil cases as opposed to criminal cases.

In this case, the prosecutor wins if the preponderance of evidence favors the plaintiff. Once evidence is presented, the BOP shifts to defense to refute/rebut it. The jury must conclude there is a more than 50% probability of guilt.

Now, because we don't actually have a jury, the effect of this decision will be mainly psychological in how it frames whether voters will declare guilt or innocence.

Also, when you are thinking of standards of evidence, remember that we don't have a closed jury pool, and voting is largely dependent on mobilization (unlike a jury, you can't force DDOs to vote if they don't feel strongly).

Circumstantial evidence must be given greater weight in internet trials, because like you said, it is hard to gather evidence on the internet. So perhaps instead of beyond reasonable doubt, we should convict based on reasonable certainty. If it smells like a turd, looks like a turd, and has the consistency of a turd then it is a turd, especially if we can't get scientific evidence to prove it is in fact a turd.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also people should be encouraged to "vote bomb" guilty or innocent. We shouldn't determine if someone is innocent or guilty based on how good the prosecution or defense in, but on the evidence.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 5:54:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that trials are usually held because the mod is undecided on whether or not to ban people. Also, they have a big effect on the member in question by removing them from the site. As such, it would be fairer for them to have the BOP put on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they broke the TOS.

@ Mr.Brooks, votebombing is highly discouraged and if done, is justification for countering. I'd suggest you look at this link for information on voting guidelines.

http://www.debate.org...
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 8:10:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 3:49:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 3/15/2012 3:44:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
This was going to get covered in the 16k trial, but that went to sh*t.

I think it'd be good to establish exactly what kind of evidence would be needed for certain charges to be considered proven.

The trial was going in a "beyond all reasonable doubt" direction. Considering the poor ability to gather evidence, it may not be advisable for an informal internet trial to have such a high standard.

I believe it would be better to have standards of evidence we see in Civil cases as opposed to criminal cases.

In this case, the prosecutor wins if the preponderance of evidence favors the plaintiff. Once evidence is presented, the BOP shifts to defense to refute/rebut it. The jury must conclude there is a more than 50% probability of guilt.

Now, because we don't actually have a jury, the effect of this decision will be mainly psychological in how it frames whether voters will declare guilt or innocence.

Also, when you are thinking of standards of evidence, remember that we don't have a closed jury pool, and voting is largely dependent on mobilization (unlike a jury, you can't force DDOs to vote if they don't feel strongly).

Circumstantial evidence must be given greater weight in internet trials, because like you said, it is hard to gather evidence on the internet. So perhaps instead of beyond reasonable doubt, we should convict based on reasonable certainty. If it smells like a turd, looks like a turd, and has the consistency of a turd then it is a turd, especially if we can't get scientific evidence to prove it is in fact a turd.

I agree with reasonable certainty, otherwise known as common sense. If we use the beyond a reasonable doubt, members can get away with anything. A person could make a second account and get away easily. The person could get away even if we know it is him, we just can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why reasonable certainty should be the standard of evidence.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 11:36:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It think the standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the judge says, "A reasonable doubt is not beyond any doubt, since nothing is beyond any doubt. A reasonable doubt is beyond what a reasonable person evaluating the case would require." Criminal trials require a unanimous verdict. For that to happe, it seems to me that it must be something like 99% probability of guilt.

Preponderance of evidence is the standard for civil lawsuits, and it's basically more than a 50-50 chance. Civil juries don't have to be unanimous.

I know this isn't a real court proceeding, but I think the logic of real courts applies.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 11:47:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 11:36:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
It think the standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the judge says, "A reasonable doubt is not beyond any doubt, since nothing is beyond any doubt. A reasonable doubt is beyond what a reasonable person evaluating the case would require." Criminal trials require a unanimous verdict. For that to happe, it seems to me that it must be something like 99% probability of guilt.

Preponderance of evidence is the standard for civil lawsuits, and it's basically more than a 50-50 chance. Civil juries don't have to be unanimous.

I know this isn't a real court proceeding, but I think the logic of real courts applies.

+1
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015