No, the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it.
quote:
That is the same thing.
No, it is not. Please re-read my sentence above and note where I changed your wording to my own.
quote:
So are you really saying that if the defense attorney claimed that leprechauns planted evidence at the scene of the crime that the prosecution would have to present evidence that this did not happen? Really?
Did I say this? No, of course not. I said that the prosecution would not
have to disprove the claim, but they
may decide to provide evidence against it. There are two important distinctions here. First is the difference between
disproving and
providing evidence against something. Criminal courts work with the metric of "reasonable doubt," not "proof." Second is the difference between being
forced or
compelled to do something, and having the freedom to
decide whether or not to do it, depending on which approach the prosecuting attorney feels is best for his case.
quote:
So you are not trying to argue that a non-physical realm exists within which resides a supernatural being?
Have I argued this position in this thread? I don't think so. Rather, I have argued for open-mindedness on the question of whether a non-physical reality exists, and I have cautioned against making positive claims
against the existence of non-physical reality.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.