- 积分
- 1550
威望 点
主场币 元
贡献值 点
好评度 点
人气值 点
好友
记录
日志
相册
回帖0
主题
精华
注册时间2010-11-12
在线时间 小时
性别保密
最后登录1970-1-1
听众
收听
|
发表于 2012-5-29 00:52:48
|
显示全部楼层
First of all, forgive me for using English to do this reply. I use English only for the sake of a speedier reply (but not to show off or something).
Regarding your viewpoints, with all due respect I find them all untenable. I think you have misunderstood the concept of presumption of innocence, and thus misunderstood most of the allegations made by people who accused Japan for not playing the game clean.
1. Presumption of Guilt
You have repeatedly emphasized that we should better follow the Western legal idea of presumption of innocence. However, for most of our allegations we have not violated such presumption. Such presumption only denotes that the accuser has the evidential burden to prove the allegations. For most of the threads to such effects, people did provide plentiful evidence, despite your resistance to accept it as strong one. Your non-acceptance of the evidence does not automatically mean that people on this forum accusing Japan are blinded by the presumption of guilt, which you repeatedly condemned. Essentially, we are all trying to discharge our evidential burden and it is only a matter of weighing the evidence but not whether we have followed the presumption of innonence or otherwise.
2. Reversal of evidential burden
In other thread I have argued that there are circumstances that there can be a reversal of evidential burden under which the accused would have to rebut the presumption that they did not play the game clean, which you agreed. But you do not agree with me that the present circumstances suffice. As I have argued, the INHERENT possibility of abusing the rule for the benefits for each team is prominent. This is undoubted. I believe this is sufficient to reverse the burden indeed. But of course you would rebut by saying that we need concrete and direct evidence because the accusation against Japan is a serious one. This relates to another matter - the standard of proof.
3. Basically the two camps are diversed in the required standards of proof. You are an advocate for a strict proof which requires direct evidence. However, this is not the case. As I said, the inherent possibility of abuse of the rule for the benefits for both teams is inevitably high and the possibility of Jap and Ser going to London together is inevitably low, isn't the situation just so aberrant that the standard of proof is lowered so that the accused would have to induce evidence to prove his innocence?
You only allow direct evidence. But the point is that neither you have direct evidence to prove that Japan is innocent under this aberrant situation. Has the Japan Team ever denied such possibility of abusing the rules? I believe not.
Without direct evidence, the allegations are mostly made with circumstantial indirect evidence, including the expressions of players, and the actual outcome which is aberrant, the inherent possibilities of abuse, etc. You would of course say that the result is normal, given that the performance of Japan fluctuates a lot. This is only one of the factors to be weighed against others. It does not automatically dismiss other evidence. Indeed, I believe under these situations the possibility of Japan not playing clean is higher than otherwise, and I see no substantial grounds of you, except your misconceptions of presumption of innocence, to support otherwise. What you are alleging right now is to deny ANY possibility of a fixed match. But I believe the evidence, whether you accept or not, apts to other side and at least, points to an inevitably high possibility of a fixed match. For me this is sufficient to substantiate our case against Japan.
A few remarks. For audience we do not judge the teams' performance using legal technicalities. Otherwise we are blinded by the technical problems which hinder the portrayal of full pictures. To make the situation worse is to judge with misconceptions of legal technicalities. It is a volleyball match, but not a trial. As other fellows have mentioned, we judge using our heart but not by mechanical rationality for which you are strongly in favour of. To deny, at least, my judgment denies my consciousness and to appeal to technical legal terms to justify your view just does not really help much.
|
|
|手机版|小黑屋|VBOL.cn
( 浙公网安备 33021202000496号 )
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2012-5-29 21:02:33