[blml] Worst Method in the World

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
>
> > My esteemed colleague should really try and use some logic here. There
> > are three possibilities: either there is evidence for an agreement, or
> > there is evidence for the non-agreement, or there is no evidence at
> > all.
>
> In real-life criminal procedings, the first thing that goes into the
> evidence record is the accused's words, "Not guilty, Your Honor."  It
> is then up to the prosecution to present contrary evidence, which the
> defense gets to rebut as well as presenting its own.  If, however,
> the prosecution fails to present any evidence at all, the judge finds
> that the evidence provided by the original plea, weighed against
> nothing, is determinative.  The case is dismissed and the accused
> goes free without the defense having to utter another word.
>
> Does it make any sense to apply harsher rules of evidence to bridge
> infractors than we do for real-life accused criminals?


Let us see how good this analogy is.  In criminal law, we "presume
innocence."  In the case of possible bridge misexplanations, we have
this:  "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than
Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

Since the presumption is the opposite, the analogy to criminal law is
not very good.  I offer an analogy more in keeping with the
presumption of Mistaken Explanation:  When you go to the opera, you
need a ticket to get it.  If there is no evidence that you bought a
ticket, you probably cannot get in.  Your saying that you bought the
ticket hardly counts as evidence.  Now there are some steps that can
be taken in the box office if you lost your ticket, but the fact
remains there is generally going to have to be some evidence
somewhere, beyond just your word.  Most people would understand that
they are not being called a liar or cheat when denied entry without a
ticket, if those are the rules.

Suppose you change the opera-entry rules and say that a person's word
is good enough---we don't need to see tickets any more.  Do you
suppose that would lead to some people sneaking in?  I think most
people are fine with the requirement to show evidence of a ticket, as
long as it is applied to everyone.

Jerry Fusselman