Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Of course he can lie about it (and I suspect he would if it meant him staying in power)....but we have no tangible evidence that he has or did at this point....none.
That's how it works in a free society....innocent until proven guilty.
|
Why does evidence have to be tangible in order to have probative value?
Imagine this scenario: three reporters, one from Gawker.com, and two from the Toronto Star (both very familiar with Mr. Ford), are invited to a party where they observe, from about ten feet away, for about thirty minutes, Mr. Ford smoking something in a crack pipe. They report these observations in their respective newspapers. Obviously, in these circumstances, there would be no "tangible evidence" such as a video recording. Would that evidence have any value?
True, it is not evidence given under oath at trial, subject to cross-examination and all of the other safeguards that have developed in our law of evidence and criminal law to test the reliability/credibility of evidence. However, testing evidence in such a way takes weeks and weeks of work by police officers, lawyers and judges. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to establish the guilt of a shoplifter beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are left to make up our minds on most matters without the benefit of a trial. We rely on common sense indicators of reliability and credibility. We make reasonable inferences from the evidence that we do have. It is not foolproof, but it is the best that we can do in the circumstances.
That said, am I 99.99% certain that Rob Ford has recently smoked crack-cocaine? No, of course not. I am however, based on the evidence so far, about 90% certain of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Fortunately for the people of Toronto there is a public court of opinion where that doesn't matter however, and they have a very easy course of action to punish him with when the next election comes. Until that time though, or until the alleged video is secured and declared as real, accusations are just that...accusations.
No one should be forced to resign there elected position on pure supposition though. If that was the case we would see politicians getting accused of any number of things at every level of government with the conclusion of them leaving their post....all without tangible proof of wrongdoing. A very slippery slope that no one should want to see in any democracy.
|
Isn't this forum a "court of public opinion"? Why do you keep holding this forum to an unreasonably high standard of proof?