Posted on 02/19/2014 1:50:16 AM PST by markomalley
Right, but in principle having a conversation about things is (1) not the same as doing the things discuss and (2) may result in discovery of truth about those things.
Sure, but sometimes “truth” is a matter of opinion just as reality depends on a person’s perception of it.
No, opinions vary but the truth is not dependent on them, and neither is the reality.
Relativism is the mental poison the left wing government uses to better control your spirit.
What if a jury decides that an innocent person is guilty of murder? It was the jury’s opinion that the defendant was guilty (”truth”). Their perception(s) of evidence presented by the prosecution and defense could have differed and resulted in a mistrial but through coercion or just one person changing his or her mind, the verdict came out as “guilty”. However, years later a successful appeal(s) or overturning of a verdict is achieved based on DNA evidence (truth) that was not procurable at the time of the original conviction. So, what was the truth and when did they really know it?
The jury verdict in either case is the collective opinion of the jury. It does not alter the truth of what actually happened.
“It does not alter the truth of what actually happened.”
I wasn’t trying to suggest that it would. However, it seems that a jury would believe that its unanimous opinion would serve as “truth” enough to send a person to prison for life or even enough for the convict to be sentenced to death AND executed.
Yes, and at times, the jury would make a mistake as to what the truth is.
“Yes, and at times, the jury would make a mistake as to what the truth is.”
...
Because all too often, they assume too much in both
“kangaroo” and real courts of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.