this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
787 points (93.0% liked)

Political Memes

9891 readers
1168 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

...........................because that's not how our justice system has worked at any point in our entire history? Are you serious? One needs actual physical evidence.

Also, why if you believe them, why did you...cut off all their faces? What the....

[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

That's not quite accurate. Our justice system has never required physical evidence alone. Testimonial evidence is real evidence, and courts have long recognized that credible witness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction or judgment even without physical proof. This principle is well-established in American jurisprudence.

Courts routinely convict defendants based primarily or entirely on witness testimony in cases involving fraud, conspiracy, sexual assault, and many other crimes where physical evidence may be limited or unavailable.

The key factors are the credibility of witnesses and whether their testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (which can include additional testimony).

Federal and state evidence rules reflect this reality. They establish standards for evaluating witness credibility and reliability, but don't require physical evidence as a prerequisite for conviction.

The burden is on prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that proof can come through testimonial evidence.

While physical evidence can certainly strengthen a case, requiring it as an absolute necessity would make it impossible to prosecute many serious crimes and would represent a fundamental departure from centuries of legal precedent.

So while physical evidence can be powerful, it's not a prerequisite. Courts weigh the credibility and corroboration of testimony carefully, and independent accounts from multiple witnesses are recognized as particularly probative.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

This is a rhetoric, guess who’s rhetoric?

Circumstantial evidence is credible evidence. maybe when tons of people are saying the same person raped them, he raped them and we should do something about, rather than arguing in the defense of rapists. Fuck this liberal idealism bullshit take on absolutist or nothing terms of “justice”, use your own god damned brains for once.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That would only work if the rapist bragged about raping on tape. Oh, wait...

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And yet chuds are still out in force screeching “THAT’S NOT HOW JUSTICE WORKS BECAUSE SOMETIMES WOMEN LIE AND MEN HAVE NEVER RAPED ANYONE!” This country is a fucking joke.