|

Rules of Evidence

In a court trial, specific rules govern what evidence is admissible. According to Wikipedia

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding.

The purpose of these principles is to assure a fair and impartial trial.

However, in the court of public opinion, such rules do not exist. With the Internet and social media, it is very easy to make assertions with little or no factual evidence. When false claims are treated like proven facts, the resulting conclusions often have little to do with reality.

The cause is a flawed framework, an incorrect way of analyzing and evaluating information. For those who embrace it, that framework makes it difficult to discern between fact and fiction. That framework calls for facts to be evaluated in isolation with little or no consideration of other relevant facts. It is a failure to consider the full context.

As an example, housing advocates frequently claim that landlords who refuse to accept housing vouchers are racist because most voucher users are black. Undoubtedly, there are some racist landlords, but the vast majority of those who refuse to accept vouchers, including myself, do so for reasons unrelated to a renter’s skin color. Housing advocates fail to identify and consider those reasons. They look at one fact—most voucher users are black—with no consideration of anything else.

However, if one examines the full context—the reasons why a landlord refuses to accept vouchers—then a different conclusion will likely result. The process to accept vouchers can take months and requires a small mountain of paperwork. And while the landlord waits for approval to enter the program, his property sits empty and generates no income. Many landlords, myself included, find the approval process and the lost revenue to be distasteful.

Housing advocate’s framework prevents them from viewing the issue objectively. When others embrace the same framework, fictitious claims can spread like a wildfire. The fuel for that conflagration is a flawed framework.

Similar Posts

  • Semi-fascism and Democracy

    Joe Biden recently condemned “far-right extremism,” calling comments made by Republican leaders, including Trump, “semi-fascism.” Biden is correct to identify the growing elements of fascism within the Republican party. However, he fails to recognize the fascist elements within his own policies. Biden and Trump are two faces of fascism. In an article titled, “The Fascist…

  • |

    Facts vs. Fear

    A recent study conducted in New York State concluded that 13.9 percent, or about 2.7 million, of the state’s residents have been infected with the coronavirus. That number is ten times higher than the state’s official count of 269,000. While government officials were quick to point out that these are preliminary results, it supports a…

  • Cronyism is Fascism

    In a capitalist society, government is limited to defending the rights of individuals—the freedom of individuals to act without coercive interference from others. But that is not what occurs when cronyism is practiced. Cronyism is the practice of dispensing political favors to some at the expense of others. With altruism and collectivism serving as the…

  • Wanna Bet?

    The recent Supreme Court ruling striking down a federal law that prohibited most states from allowing betting on sporting events was a double-edged sword. While it struck down a right-violating law, it will do nothing to prevent states from violating individual rights. According to CNN, The court said the federal law violated constitutional principles limiting…