GirlChat #607359

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Sex offender gets 3M lottery jackpot

Posted by Dante on Monday, December 15 2014 at 0:03:16PM
In reply to Re: Sex offender gets 3M lottery jackpot posted by SierraWhiskey on Friday, December 12 2014 at 2:13:32PM

"One could play a game of distributing probability equally, ending up with 50% probability of him having attempted sexual battery*, and 50% probability of something else being the case."

That assumes that probabilities in law exist along a distributed spectrum. They don't.

First off, there is ( or ought to be ) a presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence. Given the use of shadow-courts to conceal all manner of judicial improprieties, we ought to still apply this for cases where there is effectively no civilian oversight. If they refuse to allow us to see any evidence ourselves, agnosticism requires that we make no assumption that this hidden evidence exists.

This applies to most laws targeting Pedos. KP is whatever the courts declare it to be and attempting to review its merits is a criminal act. Consent is rape and any exculpatory evidence is inadmissible.

In any other area of law ( short of terrorism accusations ) the legal and the criminal aren't conflated with the goal of making the two indistinguishable for any civilian review. But since they are here, presumption of innocence, agnosticism and Occam's razor warrant skepticism.

As Jack pointed out the goal of draconian sentencing is to make the innocent plead guilty and accept something closer to reason when faced with the prospect of the outrageous and inproportionate. Further, a plea of "innocence" is tantamount to being seen as incorrigible for the purposes of never seeing the light of day after ones sentence is served.

The reason for torture is to elicit false testimony and a false confession.

They could, if they wanted to, apply the laws that are already in existence to protect against rape, coercion, fraud &tc. They create special ones regarding children and pedos in order to make the child's choice irrelevant and render them chattel property and to punish pedos for having an atypical sexual orientation.

In a game of chance one can assume naturally distributed odds of the ball dropping anywhere on the roulette wheel. If the machine has been "fixed" then one is a fool to assume that such distribution exists. And if the house both sees disproportionate successes AND refuses to let independent parties question or examine the works, then assuming that they're being honest is silly.

Since consent and rape are the same to them it takes a lot more to persuade me of rape than it does in jurisdictions that bother to distinguish. And since cartoon pictures and child rape pictures are indistinguishable to them, I need more than their word before I'll assume that anything other than pixels were abused in a KP case.

They've been caught lying far too often to be trusted when they tell you that you cannot look or question; you'll just have to believe them.

Of course some crusader types need to declaim someone else so badly in order to prove themself better that all presumption of innocence gets tossed out at the first hint of an allegation. All agnosticism flies out the window even in the face of a history of fraud. Beware of those who would ask you to join the mob, and who would condemn you for not siding with them when they rush to judge.

Dante

Dante





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?