Should You Have to Keep Records?

[Daktoria]

Let’s consider two scenarios:

First, let’s say someone suspects you of wrongdoing, but has no evidence other than reasonable suspicion. A wrongdoing yields results, and those results take place while you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In turn, an accusation is made, and you’re expected to disprove your accuser despite not having records. Should you be found guilty?

Second, let’s say someone does wrong to you, but you have no evidence other than process of elimination. A wrongdoing requires a process, and the only way that process could happen is if someone did it where and when it happened.

In turn, you accuse your wrongdoer, and your wrongdoer is expected to disprove you despite not having records. Should someone be found guilty?

[size=50](Yes, this is a test to see if second-third person perspectives can be influenced by results- versus process-oriented wording.)[/size]

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Daktoria

Let’s consider two scenarios:

First, let’s say someone suspects you of wrongdoing, but has no evidence other than reasonable suspicion. A wrongdoing yields results, and those results take place while you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In turn, an accusation is made, and you’re expected to disprove your accuser despite not having records. Should you be found guilty?

Second, let’s say someone does wrong to you, but you have no evidence other than process of elimination. A wrongdoing requires a process, and the only way that process could happen is if someone did it where and when it happened.

In turn, you accuse your wrongdoer, and your wrongdoer is expected to disprove you despite not having records. Should someone be found guilty?

[size=50](Yes, this is a test to see if second-third person perspectives can be influenced by results- versus process-oriented wording.)[/size]

In law the burden is on proof, not disproof.
Innocence is the assumption.

[Mr_Reasonable]

But the smart criminal plants evidence of his innocence.

[Kriswest]

Actually most of us do keep records wether we know it or not. If you have a cell phone that is fairly new and you have DNA. You have records.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Smears

But the smart criminal plants evidence of his innocence.

So?

[xhightension]

No, it’s not a problem. Only if you’re part of the system.

[Daktoria]

@Hobbes Choice

@Daktoria

Let’s consider two scenarios:

First, let’s say someone suspects you of wrongdoing, but has no evidence other than reasonable suspicion. A wrongdoing yields results, and those results take place while you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In turn, an accusation is made, and you’re expected to disprove your accuser despite not having records. Should you be found guilty?

Second, let’s say someone does wrong to you, but you have no evidence other than process of elimination. A wrongdoing requires a process, and the only way that process could happen is if someone did it where and when it happened.

In turn, you accuse your wrongdoer, and your wrongdoer is expected to disprove you despite not having records. Should someone be found guilty?

[size=50](Yes, this is a test to see if second-third person perspectives can be influenced by results- versus process-oriented wording.)[/size]

In law the burden is on proof, not disproof.
Innocence is the assumption.

…but that’s selfish. The innocent are expecting investigators and prosecutors to be perfect.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Daktoria

@Hobbes Choice

@Daktoria

Let’s consider two scenarios:

First, let’s say someone suspects you of wrongdoing, but has no evidence other than reasonable suspicion. A wrongdoing yields results, and those results take place while you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In turn, an accusation is made, and you’re expected to disprove your accuser despite not having records. Should you be found guilty?

Second, let’s say someone does wrong to you, but you have no evidence other than process of elimination. A wrongdoing requires a process, and the only way that process could happen is if someone did it where and when it happened.

In turn, you accuse your wrongdoer, and your wrongdoer is expected to disprove you despite not having records. Should someone be found guilty?

[size=50](Yes, this is a test to see if second-third person perspectives can be influenced by results- versus process-oriented wording.)[/size]

In law the burden is on proof, not disproof.
Innocence is the assumption.

…but that’s selfish. The innocent are expecting investigators and prosecutors to be perfect.

Eh?