The Defects of the “Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

I do not know if the thing called “proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” could ever be attained in all or in any criminal trial.

It becomes more of a legal rhetorics rather than being realistic. Lawyers and Judges must have been aware that all issues and matters within the language of ciminal laws could be reasonably doubted.

The “proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” principle is so worthless because it only applies to the rendering of judgment and not on the filing stage of a criminal case and when this principle shall be strictly applied, indubitably, all accused shall be found NOT GUILTY because there is nothing in this world that cannot be reasonably doubted. Logic  can work in many ways, it can even be a great instrument in building a concrete structure of doubts.

In a life span of a criminal case, reasonable doubt maybe established from the very beginning til the end of the trial. Reasonable doubts may intervene all through out the process in this wise:

1. Doubts on the identity of the accused

2. Doubts on the dates, time, circumstances, climates,  places and jurisdictions

3. Doubts on the instruments used, how it was used, and at what scene had it been used, etc

4. Doubts on the identity, character, personality, and profile of the witnesses

5. Doubts on the evidence collected, who collected it, when was it collected, where was it transmitted after the collection, how many days in determining process, etc.

6. Doubts on the language used in the documents, word selections, affidavits, statements, accusation sheets, and offered testimonies, etc

7. Doubts on the credibility of the law enforcers, officers, investigators, the motives of the prosecuting police officers and lawyers; fees and unethical conduct, etc

8. Doubts on the motives of the complaining parties, conduct, character, personality, and any other causes of their complaint

9. Doubts on the appreciation of the judges, jury, court, and the wisdom of those who took part in the decision of the case.

10. Doubts on many aspects, like reasons presented by each lawyer of a particular criminal case.

Evidence are not at all times admissible in court considering that there are rules of evidence restricting some proofs from being presented. Granting, that an evidence is admissible, it shall first be debated [or objected by counsel] by the  lawyers of that case. It is because there are always two tables in every tribunal – one for the defense, and one for the prosecution.

Now, tell me who could really be convicted of a crime if we will apply the principle of “conviction of the accused based on the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt”?

THE TRUTH?

Just to be honest, the subject about “truth” has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This “truth” was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn’t provide the answer to the question such as the one asked “who has the truth?”.

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called “truth”. It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that it is something produced by one’s mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black – and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain – this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail – this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law (where I professionally belong), truth is something which is a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

By this virtue, I think this is the reason why Jesus Christ did not answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?”

PUBLIC DEBATE: RELIABILITY OF CREATION

1999, Somewhere else in this globe.

Pastor: Yes, everything is created by the Supreme God.

Barrister79: How certain are you about it?

Pastor: Very certain. It is in the Bible, in Genesis.

Barrister79: I am not asking you if it is in the Bible or not. How true is it?

Pastor: It is the word of God. It is true, of course.

Barrister79: You seemed to have no understanding of the question, Pastor. Alright, since you are talking about Genesis, I think it is proper to start at the beginning. Can you please read Genesis 1:1?

Pastor: [stated the verse with his memory] “In the beginning the God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis:1:1-2

Barrister79: Is that what you call proof word of god?

Pastor: Yes.

Barrister79: Is it not a direct declaration of the writer?

Pastor: God instructed him.

Barrister79: Where in the Genesis that god instructed his or her writer to write something for him?

Pastor: What do you mean?

Barrister79: Authority. The authority of the writer to write for god.

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know the earth has no form and it was void?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know it was the spirit of god that moved in the face of the waters?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. Was the writer a real witness of creation?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Was the writer present while god is in the process of creation and witnessed the entire incidents?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Why can’t you just tell all of us that the entire tales of  creation is a matter of theology? No need to answer this question, I think we are not interested with your theology.

CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE THEOLOGY OF SPIRIT

On the later part of the direct examination, Bishop Shrewd strategically managed to propound his last two questions:

Bishop Shrewd: Considering all those presentations, can you please tell us your educational qualifications and studies in relation with your thesis on the existence of the spirit?

Rev. Swindler: I obtained my Bachelor of Christian Ministry in 1970; Bachelor of Theology in 1973; Master of Arts in Theology in 1975; and Doctor of Theology in 1979. All from Harvard University.

Bishop Shrewd: Now, can you categorically state that spirit exists in reality?

Rev. Swindler: Affirmative.

Bishop Shrewd: Thank you, Reverend.

Arbiter: Cross-examination, any?

Barrister79: Reverend, in all years of your studies, have you come to directly observe spirits?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, in many ways.

Barrister79: I am not asking about the “many ways”, Reverend. Did you understand the question?

Bishop Shrewd: Is that a sort of an insult, sir?

Barrister79: You have the right to take it as such, Bishop. I was asking about the direct observation on spirits based on the assertion of its real existence. Was it difficult to understand?

Arbiter: Are you asking of an observation based on physical contact?

Barrister79: I want to know if that is what he meant with his statement that spirit exists in reality.

Bishop Shrewd: That is preposterous, Your Honor. Spirits does not have physical bodies. Its reality is not based on material substance as what is established in the direct examination, this Holy Tribunal has the record.

Barrister79: That is the reason why I am asking, Your Honor, about the Reverend’s direct observation to check whether the reality he is talking is excusively a product of his studies or something which we could possibly know by virtue of the object which could be directly observed.

Bishop Shrewd: I am requesting for an order, Your Honor. I recommend to aim his examination on the term “reality” as the foundation which is ought to be laid.

Arbiter: Comment from the cross-examiner.

Barrsiter79: That is improper, Your Honor. It is my understanding that there is no reality other than the observable reality. If the purpose of the Bishop’s obstruction is to prevent me from asking any further question, then I will yield should they admit that the reality they are talking are mere concepts and not the objective reality. Now, if I may proceed, Your Honor?

Arbiter: Please proceed.

Barrister79: Thank you! Reverend, do you know that every real object has a component?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, I am aware of it.

Barrister79: Are you also aware that only nothing is composed of nothing?

Rev. Swindler: Ahhh… Yes.

Barrister79: Do you know that there is no reality when there is no composition which makes it real?

Bishop Shrewd: Your Honor, the examiner was just playing the semantics of language.

Barrister79: We can stop playing, Bishop, if the reality of your spirits will be established. Allow me to proceed, Your Honor!

Arbiter: Answer the question.

Rev. Swindler: Yes, of course. No composition – No reality.

Barrsiter79: Good. [smiling] Now, can you tell us what composed the spirit you have directly observed?

Rev. Swindler: You mean the composition that makes spirit real?

Barrister79: Never mind, Reverend. Just don’t bother yourself about it. 

THE BODY, THE SPIRIT

According to our major religions, that:

1. The necessities of the body is not the necessities of the spirit; and

2. The food for the spirit is not the food for the body.

The premises offered above are based on their distinct and separate existence of being.

Religions further argued that the body is a material property while the spirit belongs to the spiritual property which strengthened their argument for the difference in the state of being between the body and the spirit.

In fine, the spirit is not the body and the body is not the spirit. This stand is confirmed by almost all religions.

Now, the problem is on the other theological principle which deals with the condemnation of the body/spirit.

Why is the spirit punished for the misdemeanor of the body when it is settled that they were separate entities?

Why is the body obliged to seek the salvation of the spirit when it is already settled that they were separate entities having different necessities and state of existence?

Why can’t the body be freed from all spiritual businesses and just allow the spiritual beings to act for themselves?

Why can’t the spirit search for its own salvation which in the first place is its concern?

Considering these questions, why are we given the burden of management on the spiritual affairs which could be undertaken by the spirits themselves?

Is it not unfair that the body will waste its time for the salvation of the uncertain spirit while it has its own business to manage?

Why can’t we just leave the spirits and allow them to govern themselves rather than prying on to their affairs through religious mediums which could possibly be maneuvered fraudulently [?]

DID JESUS REALLY PERFORMED MIRACLES?

In the New Testament, there were so many miracles performed by Jesus Christ. This account in the Bible is, indeed, unverifiable and therefore no evidence could be presented as proof to the account of miracles. The Biblical texts are self-serving literature written by some unknown writers of the church masquerading as “apostles”. Noe, how are we going to judge this case? Absolutely, we will not just dwell on the claims and suppositions but the veracity, of course.

One thing in this world that we can consider as the simpliest thing that man could create is to make a story. There is no instrumentation required or needed in making a story, regardless of what story it might be.

It is only a myth manufactured by the believers that Jesus performed miracles. A claim that Jesus really did miracles were just a mere fabrication invented by the early scholars with no reasonable purpose but to monopolize power, to absorb profits, and to operate a “divine business”.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to tell you a secret on how to make miracles, etc…

ASSUMPTION x TESTIMONY + EXAGGERATION = MIRACLES (gods, satans, et.c.)

“GOD SAID”, SAID MAN

Indeed, one of the most contaminated religious reference was the literature they called “the word of God”.

What makes it strange was the fact that it was stated by man. All of the characters including God are in the third person pronoun, it only indicates that there was a narrator.

The phrases “God said”, “He said”, “Jesus said”, “Moses said” et.c. is a reliable evidence of an unreliable hearsay.

HEARSAY is something uttered by someone other that the person who allegedly made the statement.

A hearsay or a language narrated by someone else is not reliable being a second hand statement. Besides, no one could verify if such was really a word made by the one who is said to have stated it. It is very easy to deceive the public by saying that “god” told him about “blah, blah, blah”.

It could also be said that the writer uses third person referring to himself for the sake of poetic effect. This supposition proves nothing, it cannot be proven by supposition that God, Moses, Jesus, Matthew, et.c. wrote those things using the third person pronouns referring to themselves.

“God said” is an evidence that god did not said it but someone pretending to hear god.