Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). Philosophically speaking, If I reject some of the premises, this would be a classic ex falso quodlibet, so - unless I subscribe to the use of paraconsistent logic - no, it would actually not be valid. I fully agree that everything should be done to make reporting crimes and presenting evidence as easy as pos…
You aren't working with a philosophical definition of valid then. http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ An argument can still be valid with false premises. The point of using this definition is to say that if person A disagrees with the premises and person B agrees with them, that is the source of your difference, not a lack of logic like the parent comment implied. My redefinition is not a simplification or hand waving -…
To the matter at hand: How on earth is it not handwaving/simplification when you are arguing with civil law standards for criminal cases?! Do you really not see the fundamental issue here? There's nothing to "examine further" - this has been examined to death and beyond!
And yes, I'm aware that the US criminal system is not the only system in question. But I dare you to show me one (from a democratic system, at least) that has a significantly lesser definition. (And please, don't argue with well known exceptions/reversals, those are all positioned after the general burden of proof has been met.)