|
On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all.
The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do.
|
On September 28 2018 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all. The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do.
You get what approximates the best story for the particular jury that was selected but you don't get closer to the truth than a non-adversarial system of fact finding and investigating.
Just to take the example I described. A defense lawyer has to try to undermine the truth to properly defend their client in an adversarial system. That is not truth seeking just because the prosecutor is trying to tell his own story (that's still not the truth and he doesn't care as long as it fits the facts) that makes the guy guilty.
As a matter of fact lots of cases are decided without either side presenting what actually happened in adversarial systems.
|
On September 28 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all. The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do. You get what approximates the best story for the particular jury that was selected but you don't get closer to the truth than a non-adversarial system of fact finding and investigating. Just to take the example I described. A defense lawyer has to try to undermine the truth to properly defend their client in an adversarial system. That is not truth seeking just because the prosecutor is trying to tell his own story (that's still not the truth and he doesn't care as long as it fits the facts) that makes the guy guilty. As a matter of fact lots of cases are decided without either side presenting what actually happened in adversarial systems.
You're conflating two different issues -- the merits of adversarial system and the problem of bad prosecutors. First, and of course, the prosecutor is supposed to tell a narrative showing that the defendant is guilty. That's the prosecutor's job. However, the prosecutor is legally and ethically required not to prosecute people whom the prosecutor knows or reasonably believes is innocent. That's why Nifong got fucked sideways for prosecuting the Duke LaCrosse rape case.
|
On September 28 2018 02:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all. The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do. You get what approximates the best story for the particular jury that was selected but you don't get closer to the truth than a non-adversarial system of fact finding and investigating. Just to take the example I described. A defense lawyer has to try to undermine the truth to properly defend their client in an adversarial system. That is not truth seeking just because the prosecutor is trying to tell his own story (that's still not the truth and he doesn't care as long as it fits the facts) that makes the guy guilty. As a matter of fact lots of cases are decided without either side presenting what actually happened in adversarial systems. You're conflating two different issues -- the merits of adversarial system and the problem of bad prosecutors. First, and of course, the prosecutor is supposed to tell a narrative showing that the defendant is guilty. That's the prosecutor's job. However, the prosecutor is legally and ethically required not to prosecute people whom the prosecutor knows or reasonably believes is innocent. That's why Nifong got fucked sideways for prosecuting the Duke LaCrosse rape case.
You're presuming the adversarial system is better than a non-adversarial system in their ideal states and I fully reject that premise.
At best you're argument is that due to the problems of bad actors in the systems an adversarial one is preferable to a non-adversarial system which, in that way you're right, that it is indeed a different argument.
|
On September 28 2018 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 02:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all. The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do. You get what approximates the best story for the particular jury that was selected but you don't get closer to the truth than a non-adversarial system of fact finding and investigating. Just to take the example I described. A defense lawyer has to try to undermine the truth to properly defend their client in an adversarial system. That is not truth seeking just because the prosecutor is trying to tell his own story (that's still not the truth and he doesn't care as long as it fits the facts) that makes the guy guilty. As a matter of fact lots of cases are decided without either side presenting what actually happened in adversarial systems. You're conflating two different issues -- the merits of adversarial system and the problem of bad prosecutors. First, and of course, the prosecutor is supposed to tell a narrative showing that the defendant is guilty. That's the prosecutor's job. However, the prosecutor is legally and ethically required not to prosecute people whom the prosecutor knows or reasonably believes is innocent. That's why Nifong got fucked sideways for prosecuting the Duke LaCrosse rape case. You're presuming the adversarial system is better than a non-adversarial system in their ideal states and I fully reject that premise. At best you're argument is that due to the problems of bad actors in the systems an adversarial one is preferable to a non-adversarial system which, in that way you're right, that it is indeed a different argument.
Actually, you have it backwards. I acknowledged that a nonadversarial system would be better in its ideal, but currently impossible state.
|
On September 28 2018 02:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 02:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all. The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do. You get what approximates the best story for the particular jury that was selected but you don't get closer to the truth than a non-adversarial system of fact finding and investigating. Just to take the example I described. A defense lawyer has to try to undermine the truth to properly defend their client in an adversarial system. That is not truth seeking just because the prosecutor is trying to tell his own story (that's still not the truth and he doesn't care as long as it fits the facts) that makes the guy guilty. As a matter of fact lots of cases are decided without either side presenting what actually happened in adversarial systems. You're conflating two different issues -- the merits of adversarial system and the problem of bad prosecutors. First, and of course, the prosecutor is supposed to tell a narrative showing that the defendant is guilty. That's the prosecutor's job. However, the prosecutor is legally and ethically required not to prosecute people whom the prosecutor knows or reasonably believes is innocent. That's why Nifong got fucked sideways for prosecuting the Duke LaCrosse rape case. You're presuming the adversarial system is better than a non-adversarial system in their ideal states and I fully reject that premise. At best you're argument is that due to the problems of bad actors in the systems an adversarial one is preferable to a non-adversarial system which, in that way you're right, that it is indeed a different argument. Actually, you have it backwards. I acknowledged that a nonadversarial system would be better in its ideal, but currently impossible state.
In your understanding who is the person/role who's priority is presenting the truth and who is their adversary in an adversarial system?
I'd also mention there are functional (arguably better) non-adversarial systems outside of the US.
|
Enough Republicans will cave on this Ford testimony. The line of questioning on the flight just shows she’s a willing pawn in the politicization of the process, not revealing on the event. Mitchell’s questioning hasn’t done a good job pointing out the lack or corroboration and independent confirmation of facts (but then again, this is a witness that only has four names that have all denied it).
So the focus is on whether her recounting sounds believable from the perspective of not having made up the event, and whether emotionally she’s believable.
|
i see brett kavanaugh as embodying all the contradictions and hypocrisies that make social conservatism a completely untenable order of norms, despite any supposed advantages which might flow therefrom (see eg tyler cowen etc)
|
Kavanaugh is the dead nominee walking. Now the Republicans are trying to pin this on the Democrats somehow. But the calls for this testimony came from within their own party. They should have let the FBI handle it and not created this circus to try and push the very bad nominee through.
|
On September 28 2018 02:30 Danglars wrote:
Enough Republicans will cave on this Ford testimony. The line of questioning on the flight just shows she’s a willing pawn in the politicization of the process, not revealing on the event. Mitchell’s questioning hasn’t done a good job pointing out the lack or corroboration and independent confirmation of facts (but then again, this is a witness that only has four names that have all denied it).
So the focus is on whether her recounting sounds believable from the perspective of not having made up the event, and whether emotionally she’s believable.
Republicans' unwillingness to subpoena Judge really undermines the "other alleged witnesses fail to corroborate" argument. And by the way, regarding the bolded bit, you didn't clarify the antecedent of "it," but assuming it's "that the alleged assault occurred," that's factually incorrect. Ingham said she doesn't remember the evening in question but believes that it happened.
|
On September 28 2018 03:23 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 02:30 Danglars wrote:
Enough Republicans will cave on this Ford testimony. The line of questioning on the flight just shows she’s a willing pawn in the politicization of the process, not revealing on the event. Mitchell’s questioning hasn’t done a good job pointing out the lack or corroboration and independent confirmation of facts (but then again, this is a witness that only has four names that have all denied it).
So the focus is on whether her recounting sounds believable from the perspective of not having made up the event, and whether emotionally she’s believable. Republicans' unwillingness to subpoena Judge really undermines the "other alleged witnesses fail to corroborate" argument. And by the way, regarding the bolded bit, you didn't clarify the antecedent of "it," but assuming it's "that the alleged assault occurred," that's factually incorrect. Ingham said she doesn't remember the evening in question but believes that it happened.
He submitted a statement under penalty of felony denying the thing ever happened. It undermines nothing. If her memory ever clears on when and where, maybe he may be questioned on specifics like an alibi.
Leland doesn’t remember Kavanaugh, the party, with or without Dr Ford present. Her belief that her friend actually was raped by Kavanaugh is the trust she places in her friends testimony. It is not corroboration as a witness. If my friend says he believes me when I told him you raped me, he isn’t corroborating the claim that he was a witness to the crime. You’re confusing two very different things.
|
i see brett kavanaugh as embodying all the contradictions and hypocrisies that make social conservatism a completely untenable order of norms, despite any supposed advantages which might flow therefrom (see eg tyler cowen etc)
I wish that this were what was being focused on instead of all attention being devoted to these accusations. Hardly hear anything at all about what kind of judge he might have been, what effect it would have on the country etc. I think people have no patience for such involved questions and would much rather have salacious sex scandals to endlessly discuss.
|
On September 28 2018 04:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 03:23 ChristianS wrote:On September 28 2018 02:30 Danglars wrote:
Enough Republicans will cave on this Ford testimony. The line of questioning on the flight just shows she’s a willing pawn in the politicization of the process, not revealing on the event. Mitchell’s questioning hasn’t done a good job pointing out the lack or corroboration and independent confirmation of facts (but then again, this is a witness that only has four names that have all denied it).
So the focus is on whether her recounting sounds believable from the perspective of not having made up the event, and whether emotionally she’s believable. Republicans' unwillingness to subpoena Judge really undermines the "other alleged witnesses fail to corroborate" argument. And by the way, regarding the bolded bit, you didn't clarify the antecedent of "it," but assuming it's "that the alleged assault occurred," that's factually incorrect. Ingham said she doesn't remember the evening in question but believes that it happened. He submitted a statement under penalty of felony denying the thing ever happened. It undermines nothing. If her memory ever clears on when and where, maybe he may be questioned on specifics like an alibi. Leland doesn’t remember Kavanaugh, the party, with or without Dr Ford present. Her belief that her friend actually was raped by Kavanaugh is the trust she places in her friends testimony. It is not corroboration as a witness. If my friend says he believes me when I told him you raped me, he isn’t corroborating the claim that he was a witness to the crime. You’re confusing two very different things.
Submitting a statement and appearing for testimony are obviously very different things. Haven't you heard all the Republicans for the last week insisting that Ford must appear before the Senate or else everything will continue as scheduled? Do you think any of them would have been satisfied with a statement under penalty of felony?
I didn't claim she corroborated it. But a lot of people on the right are lazily describing it as "all four alleged witnesses deny it happened," which is untrue. "I don't remember it and if it happened I would definitely remember it, so it didn't happen" is very different from "I don't remember it, but it probably happened and I just forgot." By Ford's characterization, such gatherings were commonplace and her friend wasn't around for the assault so it's not remotely implausible her friend wouldn't remember it.
|
Good for Kavanaugh to take it to these asshole Senators.
|
On September 28 2018 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 02:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth. "goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense. Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal). The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo. EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed. That's not truth seeking at all. The adversarial system is specifically designed to seek truth. If you set two competing narratives against each other, and give them license to rip into each other and call out each others holes and inconsistencies, what emerges is something that the finder of fact can assess as something roughly approximating the truth. Certainly many truths are brought forward in this process. Until we find some magic way to perfectly relay historical events, this is the best that we're going to be able to do. You get what approximates the best story for the particular jury that was selected but you don't get closer to the truth than a non-adversarial system of fact finding and investigating. Just to take the example I described. A defense lawyer has to try to undermine the truth to properly defend their client in an adversarial system. That is not truth seeking just because the prosecutor is trying to tell his own story (that's still not the truth and he doesn't care as long as it fits the facts) that makes the guy guilty. As a matter of fact lots of cases are decided without either side presenting what actually happened in adversarial systems. You're conflating two different issues -- the merits of adversarial system and the problem of bad prosecutors. First, and of course, the prosecutor is supposed to tell a narrative showing that the defendant is guilty. That's the prosecutor's job. However, the prosecutor is legally and ethically required not to prosecute people whom the prosecutor knows or reasonably believes is innocent. That's why Nifong got fucked sideways for prosecuting the Duke LaCrosse rape case. You're presuming the adversarial system is better than a non-adversarial system in their ideal states and I fully reject that premise. At best you're argument is that due to the problems of bad actors in the systems an adversarial one is preferable to a non-adversarial system which, in that way you're right, that it is indeed a different argument. Actually, you have it backwards. I acknowledged that a nonadversarial system would be better in its ideal, but currently impossible state. In your understanding who is the person/role who's priority is presenting the truth and who is their adversary in an adversarial system? I'd also mention there are functional (arguably better) non-adversarial systems outside of the US.
Neither party in an adversarial proceeding is the "champion of the truth." Both parties are responsible for presenting their respective cases.
|
On September 28 2018 04:16 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 04:01 Danglars wrote:On September 28 2018 03:23 ChristianS wrote:On September 28 2018 02:30 Danglars wrote:
Enough Republicans will cave on this Ford testimony. The line of questioning on the flight just shows she’s a willing pawn in the politicization of the process, not revealing on the event. Mitchell’s questioning hasn’t done a good job pointing out the lack or corroboration and independent confirmation of facts (but then again, this is a witness that only has four names that have all denied it).
So the focus is on whether her recounting sounds believable from the perspective of not having made up the event, and whether emotionally she’s believable. Republicans' unwillingness to subpoena Judge really undermines the "other alleged witnesses fail to corroborate" argument. And by the way, regarding the bolded bit, you didn't clarify the antecedent of "it," but assuming it's "that the alleged assault occurred," that's factually incorrect. Ingham said she doesn't remember the evening in question but believes that it happened. He submitted a statement under penalty of felony denying the thing ever happened. It undermines nothing. If her memory ever clears on when and where, maybe he may be questioned on specifics like an alibi. Leland doesn’t remember Kavanaugh, the party, with or without Dr Ford present. Her belief that her friend actually was raped by Kavanaugh is the trust she places in her friends testimony. It is not corroboration as a witness. If my friend says he believes me when I told him you raped me, he isn’t corroborating the claim that he was a witness to the crime. You’re confusing two very different things. Submitting a statement and appearing for testimony are obviously very different things. Haven't you heard all the Republicans for the last week insisting that Ford must appear before the Senate or else everything will continue as scheduled? Do you think any of them would have been satisfied with a statement under penalty of felony? I didn't claim she corroborated it. But a lot of people on the right are lazily describing it as "all four alleged witnesses deny it happened," which is untrue. "I don't remember it and if it happened I would definitely remember it, so it didn't happen" is very different from "I don't remember it, but it probably happened and I just forgot." By Ford's characterization, such gatherings were commonplace and her friend wasn't around for the assault so it's not remotely implausible her friend wouldn't remember it.
Fords the one that remembers hardly anything, but it 100% it was Kavanaugh. And Senators were willing to send staff to interview her in California, so your statement is patently false.
I don’t care about what “a lot of people on the right” are doing. If you want my words changed to “have denied or can’t remember it ever happening” that’s fine. No corroborating evidence, no independent witnesses.
The party they were both at where her close friend was raped, or when she might’ve remembered her mentioning Kavanaugh, both strike me with implausibility. Leland was left alone by her best friend in a house full of boys, two of which she knew to be drunk and sexually aggressive/assaulting. And never asked or remembered afterwards asking about what happened at the party where you disappeared. That raises some red flags. As does Ford’s allegation of health issues affecting her friend’s memory.
|
This is a statement that is going to be remembered.
|
On September 28 2018 04:39 xDaunt wrote:
This is a statement that is going to be remembered.
Can’t watch at work, what’s the overall impression?
|
On September 28 2018 04:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 04:39 xDaunt wrote:
This is a statement that is going to be remembered. Can’t watch at work, what’s the overall impression?
He started by dressing down the SJC, pointing out the travesty of what is happening in historical terms. He then provided a detailed, fact by fact rebuttal of Ford's charge as if he was presenting a closing argument in court. He's now in the middle presenting all of the evidence showing how inconsistent Ford's charge is with everything else that has happened in his life. It's been a very powerful statement overall. He drew an appropriately indignant tone in the opening part when he took on the SJC. In talking about himself and his history, he has been in tears during most of it. This is a statement of a man of conviction who has been grievously hurt by what's going on.
|
Looks like Kavanaugh is going commando. No counsel is at his table. I was hoping that he'd do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
