On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Zefram wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> That's rich, considering that you're showing a complete and utter >> misapplication, misapprehension, and misunderstanding of burden of proof >> in a criminal versus an inquiry trial. > > The "beyond reasonable doubt" bit applies only to whether the defendant > performed the alleged act, and presence of doubt results in a SLIPPERY > judgement. Your judgement of EXCUSED cannot be supported by such doubt.
I don't see how you jump to that conclusion. SLIPPERY is not appropriate if an appeals court rejects the decision. It has. The standard for excused given in CFJ 1804 is: > It is in the best interest of the game that a judge not be coerced into > a verdict---ethically, e should "not avoid" giving a verdict that e > believes appropriate according to the rules. This is true even if > the judgement is subsequently found to be inappropriate, provided the > original judge made eir finding in good faith. The question them becomes "what's the burden of proof for showing the good faith", and lacking Rules guidance, there is nothing inconsistent, and everything consistent, with requiring bad faith to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. -Goethe
