Proof beyond reasonable doubt
| Summary | |
|---|---|
| Issue | “Proof” in modern justice systems does not mean the same as in maths class. |
| Exploit | Dismiss any point made by anyone in any context for the lack of “proof” in its strictest sense. |
| Exploit example | Russia dismisses all digital evidence, witness testimony, and circumstantial evidence because it was all “staged”. |
| Defence | Educate the opponent and the audience on what “proof” in justice systems really is. |
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a cornerstone of many justice systems. In this principle I want to focus on one word – “proven”.
Misunderstanding or deliberately exploiting the vagueness of the concept of “proof” is the reason why in some social groups dictator regimes are “innocent and misunderstood” if not “fighting the world evil”, while developed democracies are “evil, ruthless, and corrupt”.
How the concept of “proof” is exploited #
When you think of something to be “proven”, you are likely thinking of a mathematical proof, the kind of proof that pops up in various mathematical and logical problems at school.
Prove that the sum of all angles in a triangle always equals to 180°. It’s not that hard (here’s the proof if you are really wondering), and what’s best about this proof is that it does not leave any (well, technically it relies on an axiom) other possibility, and thus is irrefutable.
Long story short, the word “proven” in the justice principle above does not mean that kind of proof. Some people don’t realize this, and this fact is getting mercilessly exploited by bad actors.
Let’s take the Bucha massacre in Ukraine, committed by Russian military force. Can it be considered irrefutably proven? Let’s see how propagandists exploiting the lack of understanding behind the concept of proof act.
-
Q: There are satellite images showing dead bodies after the Russian forces retreated.
A: Fabricated. -
Q: There are dead bodies found in the village.
A: It’s Ukrainians who killed them afterwards. -
Q: There are witnesses testifying to executions happening on the streets of Bucha.
A: Hired actors. -
Q: There’s video footage from Bucha depicting dead bodies during and not after Russian occupation.
A: Counterfeit, filmed at a different location.
And so on, ad infinitum.
If you ask the propagandists what kind of evidence would have theoretically proven the massacre, you would not get a straight answer. Possibly, a handwritten and signed order issued personally by Putin coupled with his own verbal confession caught on video might be barely sufficient. Or not, because the handwriting was forged, and the video was a deepfake.
So the real “proof” is only one – admission. And this creates a problem.
So how does this manipulation help propagandists on the Internet? #
If there’s only one real “proof” (remember, we’re still talking about propagandists exploiting the ignorance about what a proof of guilt is and is not) that is admission, then the only logical consequence is that the one who admits the most crimes, is the most guilty.
From here it is not difficult to get to the manipulation that dictator regime propagandists use all the time.
It is sufficient to not admit any crime to stay above all accusations.
Does the state X murder journalists? No, these are the doings of unknown bandits and criminals.
Does the state X unjustly arrest political opposition? Not at all, these people are just guilty of all kinds of crimes.
More open and transparent democratic systems will be always on the losing side of this one. To keep all decisions in check, they are taken transparently, with a lot of visibility into the decision itself and its consequences. When decisions are taken in secrecy, there’s still a good chance they would be admitted to later. To improve any system, the first step is to admit mistakes made, this is why in any system that is genuinely trying to improve, there will be way more crime admission than in a tyrannical system that is not interested in any improvement.
Does the state X torture people? No, not at all, unlike the USA in Guantánamo Bay detention camp!
Does the state Y arrest and detain journalists? No, not at all, unlike the UK who arrested Julian Assange in London!
And so forth. Therefore, any dictatorship propagandist’s text will show a massive amount of proof of the crimes of developed democracies contrasted by an absolute lack of evidence against dictators.
What proof in justice system really is #
When we say “innocent until proven guilty”, the “proven” part means a lot more than irrefutable mathematical proof or the own admission of the doer.
This also includes physical evidence, witness testimony, documents – including digital, expert conclusions, and even indirect circumstantial evidence. The goal is to demonstrate something can be true beyond reasonable doubt (note the very important “reasonable” part).
This is not a weakness of justice system, but its strength, which allows it to be at least somewhat resilient against manipulation and blatant lie. ■