• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Because simply saying something is never good enough. People just say shit all the time, where a court has a responsibility to actually try to find the truth.

    Think about a murder case. Should you release everyone that simply says they didn’t do it, or should the court look for more evidence of their innocence?

    It’s a messy process because it has to be. Historically, we used to use even sillier methods, like trial by combat and such. Just your words alone has never really been good enough though, because people can just say stuff.

    Even when the things they’re saying “sound” reasonable, that’s still not good enough.

    • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Murder and being against human suffering are 2 wildly different things. I have absolutely no problem taking people at their word on matters of base humanity. Not so for murder. You can tell they’re different because one is a felony. If somebody happens to lie about being a decent person to get out of the military, great, more power to em. Whatever they do instead will be far more useful than fighting some pointless war.

      The reason their word is good enough is that they’re not denying a crime, they’re claiming a positive. If everyone started claiming they’re a pacifist, things would get better, not worse.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m not trying to debate the values, just explain the law. But no, if everyone claimed to be a pacifist, I do not think that would improve things. Everyone would have to actually want to be one too. Conscription evasion is a crime there though, very clearly, wouldn’t you say?