Proof beyond a reasonable doubt... whoever gets punished by a court of law has some bad lawyers.
Here is the ultimate defense: this all could be a dream. There's no way of veryfing whether or not it's a dream, because you could be dreaming while you perform the test. At any given time you can't tell whether it's a dream or not, therefore you have no knowledge that the defendant did anything, exists, or committed the crime in question.
Zzzzzzzz
2007-02-11 18:31:19 · 6 answers · asked by -.- 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
It's Descartes actually.
2007-02-11 18:40:05 · update #1
Actually, the dream defense works best for the prosecution.
In order to use the "Dream" defense, you'd have to convince a jury that the reasonable doubt exists because they (the jury) may in fact be experiencing a dream and not reality. But if the individual juror concludes that he/she is dreaming, they would be excused from the case, because they would be admitting that they are not perceiving reality well enough to sit for a trial.
So you'd have to have at least one person willing to admit that they are not perceiving reality, but is sane enough to pass jury selection. Given today's jury pool, you'd have a shot. Flip side is, if (when) you lose, you'd probably be both sued by your client for malpractice, and disbarred for malfeasance.
In the meantime, if I was the prosecutor, I'd counter with the point that if it is indeed a dream, then convicting a criminal would not only make the juror's dreamlife more pleasant (one less source of a nightmare), but the defendent would suffer no real harm even if the guilty verdict was wrong. After all, it's only a dream! So even it you believe him to be innocent, a guilty verdict would be in everyone's best interest with no downside. After all, he's just an unreal manifestation of your dream.
2007-02-11 19:47:11 · answer #1 · answered by freebird 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer understand! lol the situation isn't that there is not any know-how of actuality, the situation is that guy is so screwed up! He won't keep what he found out after he learns it. it relatively is definitely one of those amnesia. So guy has to circulate interior the process the ideas-set of re organising what became found out formerly, fresh what became new formerly. So i assume i'm saying that guy is unreasonable by means of nature. it relatively is sits interior the history and haunts the ideas of guys, regularly permitting the cares of different issues inflicting deviation and crowding out the actuality. So we inherit vagueness and confusion if we don't stay sharp in what we do, training what we found out. in any different case we are confronted with transforming into uninteresting, forgetful, and absent- minded.
2016-12-17 14:39:53 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
___But the fact is, we DO know when we aren't dreaming. We don't arrive at the certainty through reasoning to it, though. It's one of the arrogances of the human intellect that it falsely claims access to all certainties. What we can get to by conscious thought are the questions and reasons that we can have control over throughout their entire processings. ___Epistemological "control issues" are the source of dissatisfaction with a lot of perfectly good certainties arrived at by other ways.
2007-02-12 02:59:44 · answer #3 · answered by G-zilla 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, the acid test.
LaVey said that the truth will never make men happy - it's doubt that sets man free
2007-02-11 18:35:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All doubts are resonable until evidence presents itself. I believe you are referring to the Matrix.
At any rate, if we don't doubt, we don't explore and the answer never comes. So they have to be valid.
2007-02-11 18:35:01 · answer #5 · answered by martinlh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Indeed but not all knowledge is impossible.
2007-02-11 23:23:20 · answer #6 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋