One of the problems with any legal system is its incapacity to say "I don't know." The parties can cast doubt on certain things and let the trier of fact make conclusions from there. The court has various quasi-superstitious rules about what counts as evidence and what doesn't which basically amount to "she's suspicious because she has shifty eyes."

But the court itself can't go "I don't know; what is an equitable next step from there?" It cannot truly admit fallibility.

Courts' inability to admit fallibility is a pretty big flaw in a system that (post-hoc*) justifies itself on the myth of "due process." Instead of "We don't know. Must we procede?" it is "We don't know. How do we proceed against The Evildoers?"

*It's just rationalizing the continued existence of a system that systematized and automated kings murdering subjects, but y'know.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A collective effort to offer federated social media to anarchist collectives and individuals in the fediverse. Registrations are open. is made by anarchists and anti-colonialists, for the social movements and for liberation!