Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn
Objective truth is just about impossible to detect.
That's not always true; but when it is, what should be the outcome of a trial. Do we want to declare a winner and a loser even if we don't know we're right? I think that's what often happens: It seems to me there are many convictions where there is room for "reasonable doubt" but the jury decides there's more doubt in one direction than the other, and convicts on that basis.
It seems we'd rather punish people who may be innocent, but we don't really know, than release people who may be guilty, but we don't really know. Is this 'a good thing'?
I don't actually say that the truth can always be determined. I believe that should be the aim of the justice system and all too often is not. As you say, frequently "the cleverest lawyer wins".
I wouldn't base my ideas about discovering truth on anything to do with Donald Trump or Joseph Goebbels (Why do people in North America call him Gerbils?)