Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibilism)

[Dennis Blewett]

Dennis, why do you press the keys on your keyboard? I do it because I think it causes words to appear on my screen. Why do you do it?

The universe flows matter along a path of entropy to translocate matter as it does. "I" have no control over anything.

You press keys because you *think* (you hold a presumption that) it causes words to appear on your screen? No...

More like this (according to deterministic/compatibilistic philosophy with science): You press keys because environmental conditions trigger biological functions in you, such as action potentials in the neurons of your motor cortex that get activated to submit acetylcholine to your neuromuscular junctions in your fingers along various pathways.

I don't really want to get into semantic's based arguments too much. I think they would de-rail a lot of stuff. We can beat that level of stuff with a stick over-and-over if you want to go that route, but I don't think it's necessary.

I see what you're on about, though. You're targeting my views of causality, which are relevant to the claim of a legal actor being capable of performing an actus reus.

I've already targeted how I don't think light cones (related to arguments about causality), as they were theoretically purported like Minowski, are scientifically accurate. That information is my earlier posts.

The above argument relies on a fallacy of equivocation in (1) over the word "reasonable".

I do not think equivocation occurred.
However, there was a problem with the syllogism as it was expressed.

I corrected the syllogism's premise with a later post, whereby I had realized the premise for the conclusion was inappropriate for the syllogism.

Here is a corrected version of the syllogism:
1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to know anything if but only theorize, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to know anything if but only theorize.
Therefore, one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

...that is not the way that the word "reasonable" is used in the term "beyond reasonable doubt" in a legal context...

The concept of reasonableness is varied and started in approximately the later 1800s along with negligence law (from my study of law).

I don't have the sources for this anymore. A law historian might be able to help confirm.

In more recent pedagogical approaches (from what I've read of what is taught in law school), reasonableness is associated with the concept of "the reasonable person" of whom is a "legal fiction."

From what I've deduced, such is an analog for "God almight" or "God-in-the-highest." The reasonable person is the legal system's "God," for which the individual is alleged to be reasonable in all of its behaviors and incapable of doing anything wrong. It's behaviors are sensible and in self-defense, thus ensuring that alll behaviors are "logical" (reasonable): They were optimal in their characteristic and no better could be done.

In that and similar contexts it means "beyond a high threshold of probability which is considered very likely though not certain".

This reminds me of how I read a legal case about attorneys squabbling over standards of evidence and what it really means for something to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence" and such. As far as I looked into it, no judge has been brave enough to really set out an opinion on how to define the standards of evidence. Regardless, I've already touched on the strawman-aspect of things.

This is your argument:
"high threshold of probability which is considered very likely though not certain" = "reasonable doubt"

The probability of something being true or false is 50%. Something either is or is not true: Bivalence.

"very likely though not certain"

Where is this "very likely" aspect coming from? That sounds like judicial bias to me. What makes you think something is "very" likely? How, in what way, are you getting beyond the 50% mark? Really? How? I'd like to "know."

Do you have a monopoly on all things in reality, whereby such monopoly grants you the authority to claim whether or not something is "very likely," thus deserving to go beyond the threshold of uncertainty, which lays at the teetering 50% mark?

I hold a doubt that 1+1=2 because I do not have the authority to know anything if but only theorize.

Maybe 1+1 equals 10, which would be binary.

Why do I have to believe the answer is in the decimal system?

Are you saying I should be conditioned to believe such and am failing to be conditioned as you like?

So do you ever wonder why certain events always happen after certain other events?

Have you ever turned on a light switch only for the light to not turn on?

Have you ever turned the keys in the ignition of a vehicle only for the ignition to not start?

Answer to your question: Not really, much anymore because I see things as co-incidences. I've come to believe it's all a big coincidence. People have compatibilistic beliefs that are tied to competition amongst genetic relatives for socio-economic status in relation to the monopoly on violence. It seems that if people manage to get suckered into believing in compatibilism, then they've corrupted themselves and reduced their fitness in the scheme of evolution.

[Dennis Blewett]

I corrected the syllogism's premise with a later post, whereby I had realized the premise for the conclusion was inappropriate for the syllogism.

Here is a corrected version of the syllogism:
1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to know anything if but only theorize, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to know anything if but only theorize.
Therefore, one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In retrospect, I think it's better to argue that the former syllogism was falsified and replaced with a different syllogism. I think the newer syllogism, itself, too, has been falsified for strength. Here is a newer syllogism, which I think is more appropriate:

1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to not hold a doubt, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) It is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to not hold a doubt.
Therefore, one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

- Dennis Francis Blewett III

[Steve3007]

1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to not hold a doubt, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is still a fallacy of equivocation over the word "reasonable", for the reasons given in my earlier post. It states that it intends to use the word "reasonable" as a synonym for "logical". But, as I said earlier, the legal-context expression "beyond reasonable doubt" is never used as a synonym for "beyond logical doubt". The prosecution are never required to demonstrate that "the defendant is guilty" is tautologically true.

[Dennis Blewett]

For those of whom may be wondering how I managed to get the aspects of authority and expertise into my scheme of rebuttal, I am making the following comments:


The expression related to knowledge, skill, education, training, and experience is related to the Illinois Rules of Evidence (Rule 702) and the Federal Rules of Evidence have its Rule 702. In the year of 2021, I had realized that legal arguments (relative to the Münchhausen trilemma) by adjudicators rely on dogma or 'argument by authority' along the teleology of reasoning.


I was able to further see the depth of reasoning of a claim of guilt.
An attorney might see something like this:
The defendant is guilty because he fulfilled the elements of the crime; because X, Y, and Z occurred.


In my time studying law, I kept examining how to falsify the chain of reasoning an adjudicator uses to conclude a defendant is guilty, and I had come to realize the answer is found when relating information to the Münchhausen trilemma.
The defendant is guilty because he fulfilled the elements of the crime; because X, Y, and Z occurred.


The chain of reasoning (after ", Y, and Z occurred") might continue like such:
...because that's what most of society says relative to that premise
...because if I don't think that's true, then people in white clothes with a straight-jacket might come for me
...because I'm an authority on such (argument by authority)
...because of my expertise for such authority (extracted from Rule 702 and related to the Münchhausen trilemma)

At the start of (1) you state that you're using the word "reasonable" as a synonym for the word "logical". But that is not the way that the word "reasonable" is used in the term "beyond reasonable doubt" in a legal context.

Let me re-work your argument...


Your argument:
The word "reasonable" is not a synonym for the word "logical" because the way you (in reference to me) use the word "reasonable" in relation to the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" in the context of law ("in a legal context") *is* bad.


You say it's bad. I don't say the way I use it is bad. Just because you think something is "bad" does not mean equivocation occurred.


Maybe you're making the argument that it's bad because equivocation is occurring. But you don't go on to say how equivocation is occurring.


A definition of equivocation:

...I shall say that a man equivocates in a context when he uses some word or phrase with one meaning and repeats it with another meaning in that context...

- Kirwan, Christopher. "Aristotle and the So-Called Fallacy of Equivocation." The Philosophical Quarterly. Quote from page 35. Vol. 29; No. 114; 1979.


How have I used the term "logical" "with one meaning" and repeated "it with another meaning" in the context of law?


You then go on to say what should be considered a "good" synonymous expression for the word "reasonable":

...high threshold of probability which is considered very likely though not certain...

I don't have to accept your alleged good version. I like my version: It's good. And I did not equivocate with my version...

...the legal-context expression "beyond reasonable doubt" is never used as a synonym for "beyond logical doubt"

This is what you're saying:
...the legal-context expression "beyond reasonable doubt" should not be used as a synonym for "beyond logical doubt"


Because you say so? By your authority? So, I *should* be accepting your argument?


I do not see you as an authority on the matter. I don't think you have the necessary nor sufficient criteria to have the expertise to support such authority.

[Dennis Blewett]

Here a link to the source referred to in my most recent post: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2219181#:~ ... ame%20time.

[Steve3007]

Let me re-work your argument...

I'd rather you didn't, if it's all the same to you.

Your argument:
The word "reasonable" is not a synonym for the word "logical" because the way you (in reference to me) use the word "reasonable" in relation to the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" in the context of law ("in a legal context") *is* bad.

That's not my argument.

You say it's bad.

No I don't.

I just say that "beyond reasonable doubt" is not a synonym for "beyond logical doubt" in a legal context.

How have I used the term "logical" "with one meaning" and repeated "it with another meaning" in the context of law?

You haven't, and I didn't say you had. I said you did that with the word "reasonable". If somebody writes a word and then writes another word after it in parentheses I often take that to mean that they're using those two words to mean the same thing (as synonyms). So at the start of that sentence, if you're using that convention, then you're saying "reasonable means the same thing as logical". And in some contexts you're pretty much right. "Reasonable" sometimes is used in a way that means "logical". But it isn't used like that in the term "reasonable doubt". As I've said, that term means "true with a high level of probability, but not certain.".

You then go on to say what should be considered a "good" synonymous expression for the word "reasonable":

...high threshold of probability which is considered very likely though not certain...

I don't have to accept your alleged good version. I like my version: It's good. And I did not equivocate with my version...

Of course you don't have to accept it. You can use words however you like. You could declare that you're going to use the word "reasonable" to mean "blancmange" if you like. But if you say that in a legal context "beyond reasonable doubt" is used to mean the same thing as "beyond logical doubt" - so that you're making a claim as to how other people use that word - then you're wrong.

Again, you don't have to accept that you're wrong just because I tell you that you are. You can declare yourself to be right. If you wanted to you could declare yourself to be right in saying that in a legal context "beyond reasonable doubt" means "beyond blancmange doubt". You can say absolutely anything that you want to say. You can say 2 + 2 = 5 if you like. I can then say you're wrong and you can say you're right. Would you like to do things like that?

[Dennis Blewett]

A quick comment in relation to my second to last post...

...because that's what most of society says relative to that premise
...because if I don't think that's true, then people in white clothes with a straight-jacket might come for me

It's better argued:

...because that's what most of society says relative to that premise
...because pain and suffering will befall me

Those of whom got into IF-THEN statements with pain as a premise might grasp where I'm going with all of that.


If I do "X," then I will feel pain. If I do not want pain, then I will not do "X." (see also: the topic of operant conditioning -- found in literature and on the Internet)

You haven't, and I didn't say you had. I said you did that with the word "reasonable".

I'm not fully grasping how you're arguing equivocation occurred. Maybe someone else could chime in with some syllogisms?


From my interpretation of how the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" is used, those of whom use it professionally, such as criminal court judges, use it an arbitrary fashion, whereby they allege that the standard of evidence (name, that there is evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the one or more defendants is guilty) has been met. The expression "reasonable doubt" is an arbitrary one, whereby judicial bias enables and brings about the allegation that evidence shows beyond a "reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty.


Perhaps it's well enough to say judges do not say "beyond a logical doubt," as to prevent any critical thinkers from chiming in and asking, "How do you know that's true?" and referring to the Münchhausen trilemma and a discussion of justification theory and/or epistemology.


The allegation that a defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is arbitrarily [note: judicial bias] created by the judge (presume there is a bench trial) because the judge seeks to acquire psychosexual gratification (which is indirectly found in the money/assets given to the judge for his/her duty) from the prosecution of the defendant, whereby such psychosexual gratification acquired by the judge would cease if the judge failed to perpetuate legal compatibilism, such as through court processes.


The claim that a standard of evidence has been met is sophistry. Judges ought to be aware that a governor or over-seeing authority could over-turn the decision/judgment by the judge were such to happen. The judge is not infallible nor in total control of the verdict.


I had a brother tell me growing up that "it's about the money," whereby the legal system and its perpetuation is "it." Well, such is true in a sense in that the money encapsulates the pleasure (psychosexual gratification) for the judges' id (Fruedian psychology term).

[Dennis Blewett]

Again, a correction to my last post:

...because pain and suffering will befall me

should say

...because if I don't think that's true, then pain and suffering will befall me.

I hope that's resolved.

Also, a break (being done with comments and moving onto the furthered discussion with Steve007) occurs with the start of quoting Steve007 for this post: viewtopic.php?p=396663#p396663

Note: Any more than two zeros for Steve3007's name is but a typo.

[Steve3007]

I'm not fully grasping how you're arguing equivocation occurred.

For reference, here's your line again:

1) If it is logical (reasonable) to hold a doubt because no one has the authority to not hold a doubt, then one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Equivocation occurs when you use the same word in different senses within the same argument, but don't acknowledge those different senses. Trivial example (courtesy of Wikipedia): "Feathers are light therefore feathers are not dark." Obviously the meaning of "light" changed in mid-sentence but the change wasn't acknowledged.

So, at the start of your sentence you declared your intent to use the word "reasonable" to mean the same thing as the word "logical". Am I right to assume that's what you meant when you said "logical (reasonable)"? You then said "one cannot prove one or more defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". That would be absolutely correct if "reasonable" was synonymous with "logical". You can't prove any empirical proposition (propositions based on observation of the real world) beyond all logical doubt. The only things that are logically certain are tautologies - things that are true by definition. But clearly the term "beyond reasonable doubt" is not used in that sense in a legal context. So in switching to a legal context, by using that expression, you're changing the sense in which the word "reasonable" is used without acknowledging it. Similar to the switching of the sense in which the word "light" is used in the more trivial example.

From my interpretation of how the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" is used, those of whom use it professionally, such as criminal court judges, use it an arbitrary fashion, whereby they allege that the standard of evidence (name, that there is evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the one or more defendants is guilty) has been met. The expression "reasonable doubt" is an arbitrary one, whereby judicial bias enables and brings about the allegation that evidence shows beyond a "reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty.

Yes, by its nature, the term "reasonable" in that kind of context is somewhat arbitrary and open to interpretation. Therefore, in that context, it doesn't mean "logical" does it? If somebody were to say "I'm reasonably sure I locked my house when I left this morning" that would be a similar context and similarly arbitrary wouldn't it? It wouldn't mean the same as "I'm logically sure I locked my house when I left this morning" would it?

[Steve3007]

There are all kinds of things in this world that are open to interpretation. The word "reasonable" is just one of them. Your reaction to that (and presumably your reaction to being, in your view, wrongly convicted for an alleged crime) seems to be to throw out absolutely everything. You've thrown out all causality. You've decided that there is no crime, no victims, no people, no nothing. That's the self-defeating view you've decided (at least for the purposes of this forum) to adopt.

As I said in a different topic, it seems to me to be an understandable reaction to the feeling of loss of control that your life experiences have probably caused.

[Dennis Blewett]

To cite the brother of whom I was referring to, here is this:

Personal communication if but overheard speech from Michael J. Blewett. Date of hearing: Either in the 1990s or 2000s.

Steve3007, I disagree with your interpretations. I've decided nothing. I've presented empirical arguments for my views. I don't have free will to "decide" things and make them come into being.

I am being requested to soon leave from the computer station I'm typing from. I will do my best to pick up with this thread with one or more responses tomorrow.

[Steve3007]

Steve3007, I disagree with your interpretations.

Yes, I realize that. No problem. All the best.

[Dennis Blewett]

There are all kinds of things in this world that are open to interpretation. The word "reasonable" is just one of them. Your reaction to that (and presumably your reaction to being, in your view, wrongly convicted for an alleged crime) seems to be to throw out absolutely everything. You've thrown out all causality. You've decided that there is no crime, no victims, no people, no nothing. That's the self-defeating view you've decided (at least for the purposes of this forum) to adopt.

As I said in a different topic, it seems to me to be an understandable reaction to the feeling of loss of control that your life experiences have probably caused.

I am under the impression you have been meaning to refer to the fallacy of amphiboly rather than equivocation.
Your argument rephrased:

You're view is self-defeating because you've decided that there is no crime, no victims, no people, no nothing.

That is like arguing the following:

You're view is invalid because you've decided that there is no crime, no victims, no people, no nothing.

Decided?

I have decided nothing. In my study of neuroscience and physics, I'm against the idea that any actual "decisions" occur because free will does not exist to make a decision. And to even persuade me to think that I, personally, through some volition or "voluntary" behavior of "my own" had come to do something, I deny such because I don't have free will for such; I'm (the matter that composes the self, my "person") interdependent with all of the dimensions of reality.

You refer to the concept of "control." Control is another bad word in the sciences because one does not have "control" to *control* a variable, or say, manipulate a variable by one's volition (whereby no volitions actually exist).

It seems as if you mean to persuade me through sophistry and/or your center of gravity to accept to my argument is invalid because I present the arguments that are no crimes, victims, people. And really, from a recollection of a Richard Feyman video (I can't find the video, but it was a lecture he had given to some students), he had argued through physics (energies of the universe balancing out, for what I recall) that what he had done that day was "nothing," despite the appearance of things if but one or more somethings (as might culturally be presumed by the masses) having occurred.

Again, as I've mentioned, I disagree with you.

Thesis: The argument that no adjudicator should try one or more defendants to determine guilt or absence of guilt because pain and suffering will befall the adjudicator of whom does should be considered a valid refutation to the claim that one or more defendants should be tried for guilt or absence of guilt because pain and suffering (in the form of operant conditioning) will befall those of whom reject the argument.

- Dennis Francis Blewett III, “Refutation to the Allegation of Criminal Guilt: No Adjudicator Should Try One or More Defendants to Determine Guilt or Absence of Guilt” (2021). <https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisble ... collection>

Presuming this thread is over...

What would Richard Feynman do?
*imitates the playing of bongo drums*

[Steve3007]

I am under the impression you have been meaning to refer to the fallacy of amphiboly rather than equivocation.

No, I haven't been meaning that.

Again, as I've mentioned, I disagree with you.

Yes, I've got that. Thanks for the chat.

[Dennis Blewett]

In relation to your definitional argument relative to the word "reasonable":

According to Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a defendant cannot know anything about his or her reality (such as whether or not something may be defined as reasonable) prior to court because it is the court of whom "...must decide any preliminary question about..." the relevancy "...of evidence..." to determine "whether a fact exists," such as whether or not something may be defined as reasonable: According to Rule 104, only the court has the authority to determine the relevancy of evidence as to determine whether or not something is factual and argue it as a fact of matter (that something "exists" as a "fact").

(adapted from source) Dennis Francis Blewett III. "Rule 104: The Inability of a Defendant to Know Anything about Reality prior to Court." <https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/2NRUX7Q6/items/V3KV2APA/collection> Accessed October 21st, 2021.

The above, to me, however, does not matter so much. I could soap box about it relative to legal stuff I've dealt with. However, that would be somewhat off-topic. What has mattered to me (in this thread) is a focus on a sure-fire argument that refutes an allegation of guilt. It seems things are getting down to the level of "might makes right," which may as well be interpreted from the discussion of deconstructionism.