[ SECRET POST #4046 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4046 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Laura Ingalls Wilder Little House series]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Johnny Depp as Gellert Grindelwald, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them"]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The new TV remake of Heathers]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Travelers]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency]


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Gifted]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 15 secrets from Secret Submission Post #579.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[thewakokid]

Except you have no means to ensure that ALL evidence is seen and evaluated. You do not have a judicial system ensure all evidence is found and presented. You have the media, who has - I think we can all agree - no obligation and not reasonable expectation that they would present all evidence. I would go so far as to say the media is very much a "Present only the most salacious evidence" type of standard.

Your ability to make a moral judgement is no less valid than the legal systems judgment, of course, but your moral judgment is not supported by any system that guarantees or even supports the necessity that you see everything you need to make that judgment.

I'm not saying you don't get an opinion on this because you're not the courts, I'm saying that the system that lead you to that judgment is not geared towards you knowing everything you need to know. The legal system has those standards because it is needed to make the best decision.

[(Anonymous)]

ALL evidence is seen and evaluated

There is no system on Earth that can ensure that all evidence is seen and evaluated. Only a divine being would be able to ensure that. Having to make judgments based on imperfect information is an intrinsic part of being a human being.

The legal system has a particular set of standards for evidence geared towards its particular needs - to be able to admit evidence in a way that is consistent and repeatable and as broad as possible for the purposes of allowing the state to mete out judgment in the violation of its laws. And it's pretty good - although not perfect - at doing that, and, yes, often it will provide evidence that we might not have access to otherwise. But that doesn't make it the be-all and end-all of evidence. Especially because many of the obligations of the legal system are not particularly relevant to what we as individual human beings need to do.

I'm not saying that you have to take everything that anyone says at absolute face value, by any means, or to particularly trust the news media. You have to weigh the evidence that's available to you and you should try to take into account the biases and flaws that come along with any piece of evidence. But, I think, trying to do that is a necessary and an inevitable part of being a human being. It's what allows us to make moral judgments, it's what allows us to do anything at all. Offloading that responsibility onto the courts is an evasion, and it's not even one that particularly makes sense.

No system ever can provide you with absolute certainty of the facts of a case. We're all muddling through trying to make our best judgment on the basis of imperfect and limited information - always and inevitably.