Bitcoin Forum

Is it right to accuse someone even if there's not enough proof?

Lets put this situation in your shoes..

You know that you dont have enough evidences to prove someone that he/she guilty and that most of your conclusions are just opinionated ideas that you've come up with. Will you still push on? Will you still force your ideas into the crime? Tricking every person and making them think that your ideas are facts?

I will not prove the guilt of a person if I have no facts, because no one will believe me and I will just stay alone, but I will try to find some fact to prove the man's guilt.

Justice is a changing tide with the perspective that you take. EG. If I am hungry and steal $1 from a rich man to eat is that unjust? Perhaps but not to my hungry belly! Furthermore, as you were asking it's not good to accuse someone if you do not have enough evidence. I propose it's best to let 100 guilty men walk free than punish 1 innocent man. This is a philosophical choice though. To each is own. ha

I think that would be wrong on so many levels. I mean, we all have right on opinion, but that does not mean it is true. Sometime people are so focused on something that they are unable to see whole picture. And with that comes many problems. Being objective about somethings are really hard, but in some cases we need to give our best to achieve that objectivity.

Don't judge the person unless proven guilty :) That is the basic rule that a society should know but because of the insecurities that each of one has that became impossible most of the time. It is now a habit of a person to judge another person based on how they look or what other people say to them which is really unfair

The only way is cacht them in fraganti doing the ilegal activity you speak of right when he do it.

Is it right to trick every person? No, generally... The burden of proof is on the accuser, that is the standard custom. The harder it is to prove guilt, the sneaker the wrongdoer had to be. It's an economic tradeoff almost.