You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #59: Foo bar's 9 of 12 jurors points to why one can win a fraud case in court [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. Foo bar's 9 of 12 jurors points to why one can win a fraud case in court
while scientists may sit around forever with "coulda been" this and "coulda been" that. A preponderance of the evidence (say 51%) or clear and convincing evidence (80%+?) is enough to get a judgment and thereby, ultimately, the gun of the sheriff on your side to seize property or otherwise enforce the judgment.

A lot of people's notions of "proof" is amorphous and may follow a principle of excluding every other reasonable possibility. Scientific proof is not amorphous but is still a very high standard.

For those enamored of proof before action (as opposed to my "no basis for confidence" approach) I would ask the following question: since coulda beens will be insufficient to defeat legal proof unless they rise to the level of more likely than not, and if you accept my assumption (based on arguments and facts elsewhere) that a preponderance of the evidence shows a corruption of democracy and that thereby (but given ONLY full funding and a proper plaintiff, etc.) we already HAVE the power of the sheriff.... WHAT ARE PEOPLE WAITING FOR before they defend democracy?

OK, OK, probably some of you will say you are defending democracy in your own way by being scientifically careful from your point of view, but consider this:

People rationally over protect against the possibility of large losses that are relatively unlikely, such as tending to overbundle children against cold, over protect against stranger kidnappings when known family members are the real danger, defense forces are relatively speaking on a hair trigger in terms of investigating threats (though not necessarily for launching missiles). Therefore, even if it were UNLIKELY but possible that a threat existed to democracy, if we value democracy there would be an investigation of that potential threat, and a robust one.

Yet there's no investigation, of course, and even among those here committed to democracy there is some reticence to act upon the real implications of what we know.

Someone needs to get up in the middle of the night and investigate the suspicious noise we heard in a robust and honest way, even if it were more likely than not that it was "just the cat". Even if it coulda been a dozen or more innocent explanations.

Thus, the secrecy of the data and analysis and the stonewalling of Mitofsky and company in the face of credible possibilities or probabilities is quite arguably a faithlessness toward democracy that is itself cause for serious concern. That Mitofsky may claim that he's convinced himself it's all ok is meaningless, because the right to be "secure about one's democracy" is not a personal right to people like Mitofsky, it is a public right. Damn him for not caring about the public, and keeping the public's business secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC