Nov 2nd, 2008
Let’s suppose that there is a carton with six eggs that lies on a kitchen-table (fact).
The kitchen has only one entrance (fact).
No one is in that kitchen (fact).
Johnny walks in the kitchen and closes the door (fact).
Two minutes later, Johnny opens the door and walks out (fact).
On the table, the carton now only has 5; an egg is missing (fact).
One broken egg lies on the floor (fact).
It was Johnny who broke the egg (assumption).
Adding up the facts, the assumption is natural. So is to assume that the broken egg is the one missing from the carton.
But they are assumptions, not facts.
No one saw Johnny break that egg.
And, most importantly, no one, unless Johnny confesses, will ever prove for a fact that Johnny broke that egg. EVER.
And he can deny it for as long as he lives. And he will certainly deny it if the penalty for breaking an egg is the death sentence or life imprisonment without parole.
Based on these assumptions the jury pronounced a “guilty” verdict.
I'm just trying to convey how I interpret the concept of “reasonable doubt”.
By the way, in this story (imagined by me), Johnny’s family, as they were leaving the court-room after hearing the sentence, claimed his innocence: “It’s now clear to all that no harm has come to that egg. It was abducted as Johnny always stated. The broken egg on the floor was placed there by the blunddering cops so that Johnny could and would take the blame! We will find that egg!”.
If you, like me, believe in Johnny’s guilt, I hope you realize that you, just like the jury above, condemned him based solely on your imagination.
Although the ONLY plausible scenario, was nonetheless all created by your imagination.
Innuendo, some would say.
Nobody saw him break the egg, so shouldn't he be presumed innocent?
And if you, like me, believe in Johnny’s guilt, it means that you are just an evil malignant spirited person who wants to pin that broken egg on poor, poor, saintly Johnny.
How can you live with your conscience?
Let’s suppose that there is a carton with six eggs that lies on a kitchen-table (fact).
The kitchen has only one entrance (fact).
No one is in that kitchen (fact).
Johnny walks in the kitchen and closes the door (fact).
Two minutes later, Johnny opens the door and walks out (fact).
On the table, the carton now only has 5; an egg is missing (fact).
One broken egg lies on the floor (fact).
It was Johnny who broke the egg (assumption).
Adding up the facts, the assumption is natural. So is to assume that the broken egg is the one missing from the carton.
But they are assumptions, not facts.
No one saw Johnny break that egg.
And, most importantly, no one, unless Johnny confesses, will ever prove for a fact that Johnny broke that egg. EVER.
And he can deny it for as long as he lives. And he will certainly deny it if the penalty for breaking an egg is the death sentence or life imprisonment without parole.
Based on these assumptions the jury pronounced a “guilty” verdict.
I'm just trying to convey how I interpret the concept of “reasonable doubt”.
By the way, in this story (imagined by me), Johnny’s family, as they were leaving the court-room after hearing the sentence, claimed his innocence: “It’s now clear to all that no harm has come to that egg. It was abducted as Johnny always stated. The broken egg on the floor was placed there by the blunddering cops so that Johnny could and would take the blame! We will find that egg!”.
If you, like me, believe in Johnny’s guilt, I hope you realize that you, just like the jury above, condemned him based solely on your imagination.
Although the ONLY plausible scenario, was nonetheless all created by your imagination.
Innuendo, some would say.
Nobody saw him break the egg, so shouldn't he be presumed innocent?
And if you, like me, believe in Johnny’s guilt, it means that you are just an evil malignant spirited person who wants to pin that broken egg on poor, poor, saintly Johnny.
How can you live with your conscience?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.
Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.
Textusa