Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts) Sun Jul 14, 2013, 10:05 PM Jul 2013

Here's how you prove a negative [View all]

Remember when the prosecution had witnesses testify to the absence of Z's blood or DNA on TM's hands? That is positive negative proof.

But what did the defense do? They claimed that it could have washed off, that the evidence wasn't properly handled, etc. That this lack of evidence wasn't really lack of evidence.

So why did the defense get to object to negative proof, but yet the burden of proof of the prosecution depended on proving the absence of something, that is that it wasn't self defense?

Fucking backasswards, that's what it is.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's how you prove a negative [View all] Duer 157099 Jul 2013 OP

The burden is ALWAYS greater on the prosecution. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #1

Like the op says rainy Jul 2013 #2

I'm not a scientist; I have no idea. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #3

In a self defense case, describe how "innocence" is determined? Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #5

First, the defendant is not required to prove that he is innocent... NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #6

OK then: what evidence would have to exist in order to get a conviction Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #7

In this case where the defendant had visible injuries... NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #8

I'm asking you now to use your imagination a bit Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #9

Use my imagination? NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #10

I'm not picking on you Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #11

I understand. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #12

The defense brought up many times that the extent of his injuries was actually immaterial Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #13

I have to disagree with you on at least part of your conclusion. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #14

But they said that even if he had NO injuries, the case would have been the same Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #16

If I had been on the jury... NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #17

Cases that the DA thinks can't be won shouldn't go to trial Igel Jul 2013 #15

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #4