1. @tanehisicoates is writing some useful tweets on the folly of using the criminal justice system as only & final arbiter of truth.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
2. I want to supplement
@tanehisicoates's comments.1 reply 5 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
3. There is a big difference between what we can reasonably surmise and what a court decides is truth.
4 replies 22 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
4. The bar of evidence that a criminal court sets is very high, for very good reasons. We shouldn't jail people without strong certainty.
5 replies 18 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
5. Moreover, courts are not solely interested in getting at the truth. Also has competing goals such as social control & legitimizing state.
4 replies 28 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
6. One way to think about this is to compare what we are fairly certain of historically with what has been proven in court.
1 reply 13 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
7. Stalin & Mao were never convicted of crimes against humanity in a court. Yet I'm confident in describing them as mass murderers.
3 replies 25 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
8. Very few (if any) slave-owners were ever convicted in court of raping their slaves. Yet we have good reason to think it happened.
5 replies 23 retweets 40 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
@HeerJeet@tanehisicoates S laws didn't recognize rape of enslaved women as crimes, if by masters. So no masters in court 4 this ever.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@LynnLyerly @tanehisicoates Right, which is why this is a good case of why legal system isn't ultimate arbiter of what's right or true.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.