= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on Amanda Knox Guilty Again - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (61)
The important question here is, can the supreme court say that the evidence does not meet the standard of reasonable doubt? Is that a matter of interpretation of the evidence, or a matter of the application of the law?
Yes, they can. (But they probably won't.)
Trick question! In Italy, interpretation of the evidence is a matter of the application of the law, because the law specifies that the evidence has to be interpreted "logically". See how that works? If they want to overturn a verdict, they simply say that the lower court's motivation document was "illogical"; but if they don't, they can hide behind "far be it for us to enter into the merits of the case, which is reserved to the lower courts". It's perfect!