日志
小学启蒙：云邻女士反证误区
热度 2 |||
最近这两天对某网关注，看到云邻女士写道：【是否可以这样用实例来理解一些网上高人的“请君入瓮”推理逻辑：远东国际军事法庭欲判东条英机“反人道罪”，假设东条英机没有犯反人道罪，那么东条英机会宣誓说他无罪；东条英机宣誓否认犯罪 --- 这与东条英机犯反人道罪矛盾。结论，东条英机无罪。】
Ladi 云的这段逻辑能构成反证法吗？ 让我们分解一下。为此，我们先学习一下反证法的正确运用。
对比一下针对杨文斌的请君入瓮
1）杨文彬要 quash 传票，不愿在加州州法院打 iMan 诽谤案；
2）假设杨文彬不是 iMan ，那么杨文彬会宣誓说他不是 iMan;
3) 杨文彬没有宣誓说自己不是 iMan --- 这与杨文彬不是 iMan 矛盾；
4） 杨文彬是 iMan
看看， 3）与2) 的绿字是相反的。而且需要证明的与假设也相反 （2与4的pink)。
让我们看看云姑娘的这段“逻辑”：
1) 假设东条英机没有犯反人道罪，那么东条英机会宣誓说他无罪；
2) 东条英机宣誓否认犯罪
显然 ， 2） ”东条英机宣誓否认犯罪 ” 与 1） “东条英机会宣誓说他无罪” 1） 不构成矛盾，而是一致，至此反证法根本不能成立。另外，反正的假设必须与需要证明的正好相反，因此，你要证明谁无罪，先得假设有罪。
另外还有一点值得注意，反证法中涉及的是客观可验证命题。一般情况下，这必须是事实，而不能是主观判断。比如说， iMan 说某某蠢，某某不否认也不等于承认自己蠢；愚蠢、聪明是相对概念；众所周知，iMan （杨文彬）不过是南京化工学院毕业（三本或四本），比中科大差 N 个档次；iMan 属于中学数理化学不懂的，其智商应该比中科大的低 N 个等级；而低智商对高智商的进行智力否定判断往往是低智商者智力相对低下的结果；iMan的判断只是其主观，不具备客观可验证性。 又比如说，日本鬼子说“八路大大的坏”，这只是倭寇思维的产物，属于日本鬼子内心；八路不否定，八路承认的顶多是“日本鬼子认为八路坏”，而不是承认自己坏。但如果日本鬼子说”某某昨天给皇军带路”，某某如果知道了有机会否认却不否认，就等于承认这个客观事实。很多刑事案就是根据这种证据定罪的。"If a person is accused of having committed a crime, under circumstances which fairly afford him an opportunity to hear, understand, and to reply, and which do not lend themselves to an inference that he was relying on the right of silence guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and he fails to speak, or he makes an evasive or equivocal reply, both the accusatory statement and the fact of silence or equivocation may be offered as an implied or adoptive admission of guilt."
由此可见，我这小学老师不好当啊，还得举这么多例子。云姑娘在她那没人能看出破绽，但如果碰到方舟子博士，肯定会被客观地讥笑为W科傻妞。
另外，反证(proof by contradiction) 与 反例 (counter example) 是两回事。前者是证明命题成立，后者是举例证明不成立。
发表评论 评论 (5 个评论)
- 回复 岳东晓
- 杨文彬不否认自己是 iMan，就是承认是 iMan 。这是证据法。这我在法律文件中论证了 -- 估计湾外某些英文不够的读者读不懂。
美中网来的: 如果JFF的IP=IMAN的IP，他的定位很容易，JFF是签名参加过肖传国事件的。
- 回复 方枪枪
- 大致看了一下，从女士的新文中看到了些法律概念，不知道这是不是他们律师教的。我的理解：
Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions that might incriminate him or her, without penalty or it counting against him or her.
至此，都是证人的权利
然后
A defendant cannot be compelled to become a witness at his or her own trial, but if he or she should testify, he or she is not entitled to the privilege, and inferences can be drawn from a refusal to answer a question during cross-examination.
被告仅仅是不能被逼迫在自己的trial里作证而已
而一旦被告决定 take his own stand，他没有证人的这个 pleading the fifth 的 privilege 啊
not entitled to the privilege
拒绝回答问题，是可以做不利推定的
inferences can be drawn from a refusal to answer a question during cross-examination
他自己引的，要不我还不知道呢
只要被告同意作为证人，等于放弃了 pleading the fifth 的权利。civil trial 里面，被告拒绝作证其实更加不利于自己。
t trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant’s own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html#sthash.225wV5xa.dpuf
Defendants may assert their Fifth Amendment rights during civil trials, too, if testimony would open them up to criminal charges. But they do not enjoy the same protections against jury bias with respect to liability. This means that a jury is free to make inferences when a defendant chooses not to testify in a civil trial for fear of self-incrimination. Civil defendants often claim ignorance (“I don’t recall”) instead of pleading the Fifth in such situations.
希望我的理解全错
- 回复 岳东晓
- 你说得很对。你对 COＮ ＬＡＷ 越来越有见地了。
方枪枪: 大致看了一下，从女士的新文中看到了些法律概念，不知道这是不是他们律师教的。我的理解：
Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the p ...
感觉云女士弄拧了。其实我这都讲了 http://www.zzwave.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2&do=blog&id=30582 （Were Yang not 'iMan', he would have simply denied that he was. Yang's 'silence, evasion, or equivocation may be considered as a tacit admission of the statements made in his presence.' (citation). Even in a criminal context, the California Supreme Court has held that '[t]he prosecution may also use a defendant's prearrest silence in response to an officer's question as substantive evidence of guilt, provided the defendant has not expressly invoked the [fifth amendment] privilege.' (citation) Yang's lack of denial here is an adoptive admission that he is iMan.）
必须先表示 take the fifth ，沉默才能不被作为认罪证据。而只有在 custodial interrogation 时，警方才有义务给 Miranda 警告。至于民事案，更加 tricky。法官可能要看证人是否确实有刑事责任。比如说，被告不能因为不想交出证据就说 take the fifth，而必须是这些证据如果交出可能导致刑事责任。另外就是你提到的负面推导的问题。
- 回复 方枪枪
- 应该是没读明白。
岳东晓: 你说得很对。你对 COＮ ＬＡＷ 越来越有见地了。
感觉云女士弄拧了。其实我这都讲了 http://www.zzwave.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2&do=blog&id=30582 （We ...
