21–30 of 85 posts
Is such a battery of arguments permissible in legal contexts, e.g. in a criminal defense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading Using multiple logically inconsistent defenses is generally allowed in the US.
It seems that this is a sort of "dual" to what's called "Argument in the alternative" [1], which I've seen confused for kettle logic more often than I've seen kettle logic used itself. It's a subtle distinction. Argument in the alternative considers multiple different possibilities as hypotheticals in order to rule them all out, but isn't that kind of what kettle logic does as well? Can a kettle logic argument be eas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That brings up a question. If someone were within their rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if they used it intentionally?
Whether they were within their rights would only come into play if they had the requisite mental state (intent, recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. The jury should not base their decision on their belief whether either side is lying. 2. The defence is expected to lie, and if the prosecution cannot prove that every single one of the defence's arguments are lies, then the jury cannot convict beyond reasonable doubt. 3. The jury should assume that the prosecution is lying by default, and acquit if the prosecution does not convince them otherwise.
The jury can decide that any given testimony is a lie and weight it accordingly.
(In practice, humans don't consistently compartmentalize well enough to reliably avoid this, though.)
There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, he didn't mean to pull the trigger, and that son-of-a-bitch had it coming!"
So this is the strategy the UK government has been using for the last few years.
It seems that this is a sort of "dual" to what's called "Argument in the alternative" [1], which I've seen confused for kettle logic more often than I've seen kettle logic used itself. It's a subtle distinction. Argument in the alternative considers multiple different possibilities as hypotheticals in order to rule them all out, but isn't that kind of what kettle logic does as well? Can a kettle logic argument be eas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether they were within their rights would only come into play if they had the requisite mental state (intent, recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first place.
Interesting. That means that in some cases you have to argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted.
No, you don't.
It's just if you are charged with an offense that requires intent, the question of self-defense (or any other excuse) is moot if the prosecutor can't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place.
If you are charged with an offense that doesn't require intent, like involuntary manslaughter, you don't have to argue intent to kill to use self-defense as an excuse.
And even of you are charged with an intent crime, you don't need to grant intent to argue self-defense.
This is the logic of a sociopath.
I didn't hurt you, but if I did it wasn't that bad, and if it was that bad you deserved it.