tl;dw he had a “flat affect” after his daughter died because he was autistic, not because he was a murderer

  • Vent@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • Cammy [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Alternatively, “The victim was overly distressed and therefore was lying.”

        Western legal systems tend to favor Morton’s Fork.