Legality is more easily denied to the innocent than the guilty

Evidence

It can be said that a classic appeal to ignorance is accepted in the law: in meeting one’s burden of proof in a trial. In criminal cases, for example, the defendant is presumed innocent unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1080 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Appellants’ contention that the statute is overbroad is founded on the general rule that a statute is tainted if the conduct it prohibits includes protected activity as well as criminal conduct. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 844 (#expands, via linked claim)

The old system of legal proofs, the use of torture, the extraction of confessions, the use of the public execution, the body and spectacle for the reproduction of truth had long isolated penal practice from the common forms of demonstration: semi-proofs produced semi-truths and semi-guilty persons, words extracted by pain had greater authenticity, presumption involved a degree of punishment. The heterogeneity of this system with the ordinary system of proof really constituted a scandal only when the power to punish needed, for its own economy, a climate of irrefutable certainty. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 158 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Presumption of innocence is a legitimate appeal to ignorance enshrined in law — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1080; Torture and semi-proofs scandalized justice only when the power to punish required certainty — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 158; Overbroad statutes are tainted when prohibiting both protected and criminal conduct — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 844 (+1 more)

Broader Connections