|
|||
|
DoubtPosted on Sep 18, 2011
Advertisement New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
By danmoriarty, September 20, 2011 at 7:49 am Link to this comment
I’m going to nitpick, but I think it’s worthwhile: it’s important to note that the law doesn’t say “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The burden of proof for the defense is “reasonable doubt.” Beyond a shadow of a doubt would essentially mean absolute certainty, and that rarely exists, as all kinds of “unreasonable doubts” can always be raised (“What if the defendant has an evil twin?”). But there seems to be plenty of very reasonable doubt in this case. Georgia’s decision is unconscionable.
Report this