I’m still stuck on the part where we convict people due to their emotions and not due to evidence that they committed the crime. Smiling during a robbery is not conducive to actually performing said robbery, so why is it admissible in court? The judge shouldn’t need to make a call on this at all.
I’ve seen a lot of “the victim was insufficiently distressed therefore they must be lying” in spousal abuse cases. Performance is apparently a huge part of how much you’re believed in court
I’m still stuck on the part where we convict people due to their emotions and not due to evidence that they committed the crime. Smiling during a robbery is not conducive to actually performing said robbery, so why is it admissible in court? The judge shouldn’t need to make a call on this at all.
Honestly, it’s staggering to think of all of the systemic ableism.
I’ve seen a lot of “the victim was insufficiently distressed therefore they must be lying” in spousal abuse cases. Performance is apparently a huge part of how much you’re believed in court
Alternatively, “The victim was overly distressed and therefore was lying.”
Western legal systems tend to favor Morton’s Fork.