Note: I had this post with a question that follows, but then I reformed the question again. I've used ChatGPT to help me research this issue, and I think it has been somewhat helpful.
For anyone looking at this post from my last one, I deleted my last post because a conversation with ChatGPT notified me as to it not being the information that I was seeking. Essentially, I was asking the wrong question. I've been noticing I don't get very far asking the wrong questions.
My question was the following: How do judges substantiate that they have satisfied a standard of proof relative to something in order to claim said something as factual?
Judges substantiate that they have satisfied a standard of proof by issuing a ruling or decision that reflects their assessment...
That's not the information I was looking for, as that's not how I meant the word substantiate to be used. I meant to get down to the level of architecture with how judges qualify something as true from the get-go.
Here is part of an extract of a conversation that I had with ChatGPT:
It's important to note that judges are required to follow established rules of evidence and standards of proof, which aim to ensure fairness and impartiality in the legal process. If a judge were to rely solely on their discretion and judgment without considering the rules and standards, then that could be considered a due process violation...
I think that judges rely solely on their discretion and judgment without considering the rules and standards (whereby no judge can consider any said rules and standards because no judge can know of said rules and standards).
Here is what I think is the answer to my question: Judges violate due process in their efforts to make a logical connection between would-be evidence and facts in question because judges rely solely on their discretion and judgment without considering the rules and standards (whereby no judge can consider any said rules and standards because no judge can know of said rules and standards).
Circumstantial evidence in support of my premise:
- Cartesian doubt
- The need for a justified true belief to be known as a justified true belief in order for it to be knowledge: Advocation of the KK thesis.
- The philosophy of skepticism
Here is ChatGPT's response to my thesis:
I must respectfully disagree with this statement. Judges do not violate due process in their efforts to make a logical connection between evidence and facts in question. In fact, judges are bound by rules and standards of evidence that have been established by law and legal precedent. These rules and standards provide guidelines for judges to evaluate evidence and determine its relevance and admissibility.
Judges are not solely relying on their discretion and judgment when making evidentiary rulings. They are bound by legal precedent and rules of evidence, which provide a framework for making these decisions. Additionally, judges are required to provide reasoning for their evidentiary rulings, which can be reviewed and challenged by higher courts.
While it is true that there may be situations where the evidence is unclear or inconsistent, judges are still required to make a reasoned decision based on the available evidence and legal standards. If a judge were to ignore legal standards and rely solely on their discretion and judgment, that would indeed be a violation of due process. However, the legal system is designed to prevent such violations and to ensure that judges are following established rules and standards.
My bias: I am biased in the generation of this post in that I believe judges arbitrarily claim for there to be logical connections between would-be evidence and facts in question that causes due process (14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for instance) to be violated.
UPDATE 1 @ 2:35 p.m. Central standard time on 4/23/2023:
I will update with two things:
- An extension to my premise of my thesis for what is speculated to be the answer to my question.
- Context to the circumstantial evidence in support of the premise supporting the claim of the thesis.
Judges rely solely on their discretion and judgment without considering the rules and standards (whereby no judge can consider any said rules and standards because no judge can know of said rules and standards) because there is nothing else judges may rely on; no judge has omnipotence to make sense of anything else.
Now, I will add context to my circumstantial evidence.
Firstly, as part of my research for this issue, I claim that I was wrongfully convicted of the charge of attempt to disarm a peace officer in Illinois. I have spent enough time reflecting that there had to have been procedural issues, such as the admittance of what would be claimed to be evidence of my wrongdoing by prosecution, in my case that caused me to be wrongfully convicted. I chalk it up to the belief that due process was violated. My take on the matter is that prosecutor's actively engage in fraud upon the court by (1) falsely arguing alleged evidence of wrongdoing is representative of actual evidence of wrongdoing, whereby it is false because all people are non-willfully ignorant of the law, (2) recklessly asserting that alleged evidence is representative of actual evidence, (3) the court being deceived as to the alleged evidence's authenticity, and (4) the court suffering harm to its impartiality on the legal guilt of the defendant. I might make a post on non-willful ignorance, but the general idea is that no one can have a JTB (if but fallible JTB) if but know oneself to have a JTB (if but fallible JTB) in order to qualify one's self as not ignorant of the law.
I believe if it's true that a defendant was factually innocent of a charge, then it may be inferred that the defendant's right to due process was violated. My experience with the legal system is from first-hand experience and from my learnings of it from other sources. I had been educated in various skeptical hypotheses about reality, so I believed that I did not know anyone to be a peace officer: I held the theory that I was completely oblivious to my reality. I was not educated on the justified true belief paradigm of knowledge during fighting the felony charge, but I did not believe anyone to be a peace officer: I used a paradigm of theorizing about things and seeking support or refutation of any theory in an attempt to build knowledge. For what I grasp about JTB, even if I believed anyone to be a peace officer, no one could infallibly know that I held such JTB. Although I do not want to go off track, for anyone who thinks the reasonable person standard proves whether or not someone knew someone else to be a peace officer, it is not reasonable to attribute to a hypothetical person that it reasonable to know whether or not anyone is a peace officer unless said hypothetical person is also attributed with omnipotence to overcome universal doubt.
Let's imagine an Illinois judge is having an evidentiary hearing as to whether or not a defendant knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer.
According to the paradigm of justified true belief, the defendant knew it was disarming a peace officer if it had a JTB as to such. If we accept the paradigm of there having been a fallibly justified true belief, then the defendant may be qualified to have known someone to be a peace officer.
The judge may not be educated in epistemology, but the judge has to make an opinion as to whether or not prosecution's alleged evidence is representative of actual evidence. The first part to doing that is establishing whether or not there is a logical connection rather than "question" (edited 4/24/2023) between the alleged (or "would be") evidence and the facts in question.
There is an issue, though. How can the judge overcome Cartesian doubt in order to ensure whether or not there is a logical connection?
For instance, if it is a fact that an evil genius falsified prosecution's alleged evidence that supports the fact in question (namely, the question of whether or not the defendant attempted to disarm a peace officer), to the point that prosecution does not know of its validity but such validity is presumed, then any alleged logical connection that the judge claims exists for prosecution's alleged evidence to be entered into record would be falsely alleged.
Let's return this to ChatGPT's implied claim that judges know for there to be rules and standards that they have to rely on.
With Cartesian doubt in mind, a judge cannot know if it has been deceived as to what the standards and rules are that it should obey in determining whether or not there is a logical connection between would-be evidence and facts in question. I presume the judge would need omnipotence to overcome deception by any previously omnipotent being in order for the judge to ensure it is not being deceived as to said rules and standards.
Regardless, perhaps by luck a judge could have a justified true belief as to what the rules and standards are. But the judge would be recklessly qualifying would-be evidence as relevant evidence of establishing the truth of a fact in question unless (relative to the KK thesis) the judge could know its JTB to be a JTB.
Relative to the philosophy of skepticism, it is presumed that are various grounds and scenarios that may exist to posit that a judge cannot know what the rules and standards are. Maybe, by chance, the universe was made five minutes prior to evidentiary arguments and the judge has a false memory of the rules and standards.
But if the judge was infallible, then the judge would not be in error nor have the possibility of error in determining what the rules and standards are for determining whether or not there is a logical connection between would-be evidence and facts in question.
Update 2 on 4/25/2023:
Stevan S. Saban's answer has informed me that I have failed to properly define/introduce all of my terms, at least "would-be evidence."
By would-be evidence, I was referring to "something" that would "be accepted by the court as evidence," "receivable as evidence in legal proceedings..."
"In determining the admissibility of evidence, the judge should determine the relevance and materiality of the information... In the United States, a judge presiding over a jury trial will determine the relevance and the jury will determine the materiality..." (source)
The idea is that before a trial, there is a hearing held on whether or not materials, information, and such should be admitted into evidence for use during the trial. The judge oversees the admission of whether or not said things are entered (allowed) into evidence (allowed to be considered as evidence for use during the trial).
There are cases, such as restraining order cases, where there is no hearing before a trial on admitting things as evidence. In such a case, at least here in Illinois, a judge would be presiding over whether or not something may be considered evidence. But, still, a judge would need to develop that "logical connection" between would-be evidence and facts in question in order for the judge to consider such materials/"would-be evidence" as relevant in order to prove or disprove something being a fact.