Who bears the greater guilt?

[Reservoir_Dog]

The response to this poll has been slow, probably because it’s buried down in Apologetics → Philosophy, or maybe because it refers to “a king”, which is (I am guessing) seen as an anachronism.

I keep hoping that we’ll get an answer from an expert in law or moral philosophy.

I’ve really enjoyed this poll and discussion - it’s a fascinating question.

Well, I’ve tried criminal cases, and I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the question. What do you mean when you say the judge and king “know” someone is innocent? Are you positing some power of omniscience? Are you asking about a situation where the judge (as trier of fact) isn’t convinced that the government proved guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt and still finds the defendant guilty?

 

[JHow]

The response to this poll has been slow, probably because it’s buried down in Apologetics → Philosophy,…

I wondered about where best to put the poll Do you think it fits better somewhere else?

Thanks to everyone posting so far. All of the feedback has been great - I mean that!

To the posters with questions about the meaning of “guilt” and “innocence”, I have tried to stay out of the converstaion because I really want to see how people react to the question, what sorts of things are top of mind and how they understand it. I don’t want to take sides - I’m hoping it will be kind of an experiment. I would say to use the definitions of “guilt” as you understand them, or what you take to be the most common sense of the word. If your position is that this can’t be done and the question can’t be answered as posed, that, too, is a finding and is useful to me.

For the curious, this question was prompted by a conversation with my brother. We actually “polled” family members and then hit on the idea of seeing what CAF members might think. Again, thanks to all responders.

 

[SonCatcher]

One challenge I have about the question as presented is that there are so many unknown facets.

Are we to assume that both the judge and king know of factual evidence that irrefutably proves the person’s innocence and also that they know irrefutably that the condemning evidence was false?

Hmm… St. Thomas More comes to mind.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

One challenge I have about the question as presented is that there are so many unknown facets.

Are we to assume that both the judge and king know of factual evidence that irrefutably proves the person’s innocence and also that they know irrefutably that the condemning evidence was false?

Hmm… St. Thomas More comes to mind.

I’ve asked that, still waiting for a clarification. It doesn’t have to be false evidence either, it only has to be less than the burden of proof, which makes it an even more interesting question.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’ve asked that, still waiting for a clarification. It doesn’t have to be false evidence either, it only has to be less than the burden of proof, which makes it an even more interesting question.

I hope your Anglican self didn’t mind the Thomas More reference

Burden of proof is indeed important but if the false evidence meets the burden of proof then the greater guilt falls on who falsified the evidence.

In recent history, however, there was the case of a man who was executed in Texas. It seems the evidence used to convict him was misinterpreted (as opposed to blatantly false) so that a fatal accidental fire was ruled as arson.

How is guilt assigned in “honest mistakes”?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I hope your Anglican self didn’t mind the Thomas More reference

Burden of proof is indeed important but if the false evidence meets the burden of proof then the greater guilt falls on who falsified the evidence.

In recent history, however, there was the case of a man who was executed in Texas. It seems the evidence used to convict him was misinterpreted (as opposed to blatantly false) so that a fatal accidental fire was ruled as arson.

How is guilt assigned in “honest mistakes”?

Not in the least.

Jurisprudence promises only due process and a fair trial as the best way to determine truth, but it does not guarantee objective TRVTH as the outcome. Sometimes the truth takes back seat to other social policies, e.g., priest-penitent privacy, attorney-client communication privacy. Those, as well as honest mistakes are part of the deal.

 

[JHow]

I’ve asked that, still waiting for a clarification. It doesn’t have to be false evidence either, it only has to be less than the burden of proof, which makes it an even more interesting question.

Thank you both for responding. I have to say getting a professional legal mind (Resevoir, your posts seem to indicate you deal with law in real life?) is great (name removed by moderator)ut.

Let’s assume that the judge and king both believe privately that the burden of proof has not been met, but the judge is going forward with the conviction because it serves the purpose of getting rid of a trouble-maker and the king is witholding any pardon for the same reason. This is what I had in mind in saying they “know” the convicted man did not do the crime. Does that help?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Thank you both for responding. I have to say getting a professional legal mind (Resevoir, your posts seem to indicate you deal with law in real life?) is great (name removed by moderator)ut.

Let’s assume that the judge and king both believe privately that the burden of proof has not been met, but the judge is going forward with the conviction because it serves the purpose of getting rid of a trouble-maker and the king is witholding any pardon for the same reason. This is what I had in mind in saying they “know” the convicted man did not do the crime. Does that help?

It would be very unethical and morally wrong for the judge to rule that way. If we’re in a state where an accused is presumed innocent and the government doesn’t carry its burden, then innocent he remains.

Here’s where its different for the king. The judge’s** job** is to admit or refuse evidence, evaluate credibility of witnesses, so he sees first hand what the government and defense offer, and is in the best position to make the call. The king doesn’t have this evidence evaluation and fact finding job. And since he’s removed from the process, he doesn’t have the judge’s perspective.

Now you’d have to ask what the King’s job is, given that he isn’t in the position to know as the judge does. If he’s a pardoner, I hope he’s got some policy guidelines so that he doesn’t grant or refuse pardons arbitrarily. Maybe “deep suspicion that he was railroaded” is enough. But he probably isn’t certain, because he’s removed from the process.

On the other hand he might act as an appellate court to review the judge’s ruling (the hypo did not mention an appellate court to review a flawed trial court). Here, the king can do several things, vacate the conviction, modify the punishment, send it back for retrial.

So the king’s culpability depends on what his job is.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Well, I’ve tried criminal cases, and I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around the question. What do you mean when you say the judge and king “know” someone is innocent? Are you positing some power of omniscience? Are you asking about a situation where the judge (as trier of fact) isn’t convinced that the government proved guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt and still finds the defendant guilty?

I apologise for not seeing that you had the expertise I was looking for. Thanks for your responses in this thread, including the more recent longer analysis.

I was hoping that a legal mind would be able to determine the matter, but instead you’ve provided another perspective, which the amateurs are perhaps not aware of - that the law is about process and evidence, rather than “truth”, if I understand you correctly. As you say your longer analysis, the judge has violated the process, but the king may or may not have, depending on his role in this hypothetical legal system.

Thanks, and I hope I’ve read you correctly!

 

[SonCatcher]

Thank you both for responding. I have to say getting a professional legal mind (Resevoir, your posts seem to indicate you deal with law in real life?) is great (name removed by moderator)ut.

Let’s assume that the judge and king both believe privately that the burden of proof has not been met, but the judge is going forward with the conviction because it serves the purpose of getting rid of a trouble-maker and the king is witholding any pardon for the same reason. This is what I had in mind in saying they “know” the convicted man did not do the crime. Does that help?

A person I know was once on a jury where a person was accused of being in possession of an unlawful weapon. The person was known to be a troublemaker (drug dealer, I think) but the authorities were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to convict. In a traffic stop, they found a segment of a baseball bat lodged tightly in his car where it was supporting some damaged member of the car (honestly, not a smart thing to do but legally all they could do was slap him with a fine that he could avoid by fixing the problem). The jury found that it was not the kind of weapon it was alleged to be and returned a “not guilty” even though every last one of them knew he likely was guilty of something else if only the authorities had sufficient evidence.

Since the judge in this scenario is sole interpreter of the facts in the case, he bears greater guilt for the unjust conviction.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I apologise for not seeing that you had the expertise I was looking for. Thanks for your responses in this thread, including the more recent longer analysis.

I was hoping that a legal mind would be able to determine the matter, but instead you’ve provided another perspective, which the amateurs are perhaps not aware of - that the law is about process and evidence, rather than “truth”, if I understand you correctly. As you say your longer analysis, the judge has violated the process, but the king may or may not have, depending on his role in this hypothetical legal system.

Thanks, and I hope I’ve read you correctly!

You’e welcome. You got it correct, with a lot fewer words.

You might find it interesting to know that defense lawyers often won’t ask their clients the question, “did you do it?”