Winstonm, on 2017-June-18, 11:07, said:
I understand the frustration. The situation has grown ugly and perhaps even a little desperate, as a twisted and corrupt attack on truth and facts is justified if it produces a winning result, regardless of the damage caused. It is a war mentality without the civility of international warfare and without rules of engagement. War is more than a military attack; it is a political action that must have some type of follow-up action to make a change - without that plan, all you have is conquest, but no real gain as you sacrifice freedom to make certain the conquered do not rise up in insurrection.
How to engage in a viable debate when facts themselves are considered subjective is the greatest question of this generation. I look at the headlines of our top news organizations - Washington Post, the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and others, and what I see are many opinions states as a headline: Ex-Clinton lawyers says...., Former CIA Chief says....
The problem is facts are facts, but evidence is a tricky element. Evidence is subject to confirmation bias and could become subjective. Facts can be objective but the interpretation of evidence is subjective. Therein lies the problem with rational debate.
We could be looking at the same set of facts--old lady and young woman picture--and arrive at markedly different conclusions about who is in the image. The fourth estate (media) could release facts (or innuendo) about the picture, but that doesn't change the picture. It may, however,color our opinions more about each other's credibility. The picture is factual; our interpretation of said picture, however is subjective.
Also the admissibility of evidence in the court of public opinion is far lower than the admissibility of evidence in a federal court. In the court of public opinion, almost all is "fair" in the rules of engagement. You can use facts, lies, innuendo, conjecture, supposition, emotional appeals, appeals to the credibility of the persuader, character assassination, smear campaigns, logical appeals, logical appeals with fallacies--the list is endless. However, there are 10 general commandments one should follow in rational debates.
The rules of admissibility of evidence in our judicial system are very narrow. It doesn't allow hearsay and innuendo and guilt by association claims and a lot of logical fallacies to be admitted as "proof" when they aren't. Proof is a higher evidence standard. Therefore, most salacious, titillating, and dubious "facts" fit for public consumption from media outlets wouldn't be admissible as evidence in a court of law.
What Are Some Factors for Determining If Evidence Is Admissible [in a court of law]?
The general rule is that all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible and all relevant evidence is admissible.
Quote
There are two basic factors that are considered when determining whether evidence is admissible or not:
Relevant – The evidence must prove or disprove an important fact in the criminal case. If the evidence doesn't relate to a particular fact, it is considered "irreelvant" and is therefore inadmissible.
Reliable – Reliability refers to the credibility of a source that is being used as evidence. This usually applies to witness testimony.
There are four basic types of evidence:
- Demonstrative (a model of what likely happened at a given time and place)
- Documentary (a letter, blog post, or other document)
- Real (tangible things, such as a weapon)
- Testimonial (witness testimony)
What Are Some Factors That Determine Whether Evidence Is Inadmissible?
Evidence inadmissibility is an extremely nuanced field of law. Although evidence rules are driven by public policy, those same rules often have exceptions and those exceptions can have exceptions. In general though, evidence is more likely to be inadmissible if the evidence is:
- Unfairly Prejudicial – Evidence that arouses the jury’s outrage without adding any material information is often excluded. For example, the picture of children around a victim’s body is often ruled as being unfairly prejudicial.
- Wastes Time – In trials, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Juries do not have to hear from twenty separate character witnesses to know that the defendant is typically an honest person.
- Misleading – Evidence that could draw the jury’s attention away from the main issues of the case are misleading and often excluded. For example, the defendant’s homosexuality in a child molestation case is misleading since the issue is whether the defendant had sex with a minor. The gender of the minor is irrelevant.
- Hearsay – Testimony which is made outside of the court to prove the truth of the matter is often excluded. For example, if a witness claims another witness said the defendant hit the victim with a knife and the prosecutor wants to use the testimony to prove that the defendant stabbed the victim, that testimony is considered hearsay. However, the hearsay rule has over forty different exceptions such as the dying declaration exception.
- Character – Evidence to prove that the defendant or the victim has a certain personality trait and that the defendant acted according in consistently with that personality trait is often excluded. The exception is if the defendant introduces character evidence first.
- Expert Testimony – Expert testimony can only be given by experts. "Lay" witnesses cannot give expert testimony.
- Privileges – Evidence is often excluded if it came from a privileged source of information. The most important privileges are between attorneys and clients, as well as the right against self-incrimination. (bold mine)
See
http://www.legalmatc...e-evidence.html
As you can see, a convincing case made in the court of public opinion may result in an acquittal in the court system because a lot of "facts" or "evidence" are either irrelevant or unreliable. Facts from media outlets may not reveal a larger, obvious truth when we scrutinize them (and their sources) for accuracy, relevance and reliability.
Help
