Much of our legal system eventually boils down to this highly subjective condition. Hypothetical situation: Person A shoots person B causing serious injury but not death. Person B presses charges. Person A claims that person B began punching them out of the blue for no reason, so person A shot person B in self defense. Person B claims that person A pulled a gun on them out of the blue for no reason and person B attacked person A in self defense. Person A has no criminal history. Person B has several various assault charges on record. For argument's sake: -there are no witnesses -no evidence or claims that either person had ever met each other before -no evidence or claims of motive- they both state that one attacked the other for no reason, out of the blue -both individuals are 'loners'- there are no character references available -both individuals are sticking to their story, and their stories are the same except for whom aggressed first. Based purely on Person B's history of assaulting people, as that is the only evidence available, is it reasonable for a judge/jury to conclude that person A is telling the truth and person B is lying?
Both could be telling the truth based on their perspective is the problem I see. It is just like those studies of eye witness testimony being flawed https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ That is why forensic evidence is so important with crimes. The human mind is not always reliable and can often trick itself.
Supposing forensic evidense was inconclusive in corraberating either of their accounts, what would you consider the best outcome? Person A being found guilty, person B being found guilty, or the case being dismissed entirely?
I selected "No" because of the fact that in this instance B could be candid and Person A could be fabricating what has transpired with the knowledge that he (Person A) would be believed over the other (Person B). The best course for this is to allow the matter to be decided in court, although the so-called criminal justice system is neither an arbiter nor a honest distributor of justice. Being that we are dealing with what IS and not What Could Be.
B is more likely lying given all facts, but neither can be proven beyond doubt. My reasoning, if someone pulls a gun on me I don't move in to attack them with fists. The background of B allows me slightly more confidence, but plays a much smaller role than the actual story that B puts forth. I'd also add that being punched shouldn't justify use of deadly force. Take your damn beating like a man.
No. If that's all I have, I'd dismiss the case entirely because of lack of evidence. Innocent until proven guilty. But in real life there is no such thing as "attacking someone for no reason". This is unrealistic. You need to investigate their motives.
Not sure how it works in the States but unless the defendant tries to prove good character the evidence of prior convictions won't be put before a jury. Person A would likely be required to prove self-defence (at least that is the case in my jurisdiction).
Take matey's gun away. Can't tell who is guilty, can tell that one is more dangerous than an other. One has done more harm than another and one has the potential to do more harm than another. With no resolution there is no reason it won't kick off again. Remove the opportunity for it to have an even more unbalanced outcome than it already has. Getting punched is not good reason to start shooting people.
If you are referring to the Kavanaugh hearing, please remember that he has many, many character references. Ford, seems not so much.
