What is the function of a secondary layer that just negates the first layers conclusions?
I would think maybe the second layer sees that overall the first layer is doing something wrong. It’s using witnesses and using other people to estimate if those witnesses are actually worth listening to, and the second layer just decided that actually no, the first layer failed.
But it just leaves the first layer like that. Doing the same thing but expecting a different result.
Well actually you can have a different result if you have enough money to go to the second layer.
Which raises a second question of are there a number of cases that could go the same way, but for lack of money they don’t? What sort of justice is that where it’s one rule for some people (who have access to a great deal of money) and a different rule for other people?
Perhaps it’s not a justice system. A former justice of the supreme court seemed very focused on it being business as usual to just ignore what the first layer had concluded.
Maybe it’s just humans having an inability to deal with probabilistic thinking – the people involved just go ‘is there any doubt’ and if there is, then the person then being treated as innocent. Could there be doubt as to a witnesses testimony but the accused person actually did the crime? Well of course, but acknowledging that benefit of the doubt may lead to guilty people being proclaimed as innocent would require probabilistic thinking of the odds of which state they are. And the courts are sunk in black and white thinking that deems them as the sole arbiter of truth – unless a bigger, more expensive court says that actually they are the sole arbiter of truth.
I wonder if we could reverse it and lay charges on the victim that they were abused? Could there be a benefit of the doubt that it occurred? I would say so. So that means they were definitely abused? Of course, in exactly the same way Pell is innocent.
But who were they were abused by?
Who knows. Maybe an act of god.