I make this argument in some of my other posts.
Those that are compliant to the 'burden of proof', would you live in a world, where the rule was reversed and all denials had to be logically proven?
I know we go in circles with this one, but maybe i'll categorize this one in 'Law', and see if I can get some new arguments of logic for both sides.
In closing, in criminal-cases in the U.S. isn't the burden of the proof on the prosecution? Why are Scientist, different in their logical-disciplines, go against the grain of the scientific-reasoning the Prosecution must use?
Any professional-opinion matters, as do others, I do have a sense of humor, but I am serious about discovering....Scientific-communities bow down before the creator of the burden of proof, then when falsely accused of something, beg for mercy from the prosecution who's going to prove his denial of guilt is suspect.
Game on!
http://www.findlaw.com
2007-12-22
15:21:36
·
2 answers
·
asked by
SophiaSeeker
5
in
Law & Ethics