How’s this for a reality check on Irrelevant, Trivial, and Vacuous Proofs:
If a Hypothesis [call it P(x)] is Always False
If a Conclusion [call it Q(x)] is Always True
Then the Implication [call it P(x) implies Q(x)] is Always True.
So for example, Let the hypothesis P(x) be the statement “We are all bad people”
or let the conclusion Q(x) be the statement “The baby died”.
the implication is ALWAYS TRUE and a conviction can be obtained for anything: “Society needs an example of…(insert anything here) and conviction of…(insert any case here) is justified”.
So the resulting travesty is that injustice can be condoned.
Is this akin to the legal paradox “No body, no crime” or “The ends justify the means”?
I’m sure the fact that some detectives skew investigations and some situation experts
testify falsely in reports in order to appease the desires of current
political forces also weighs into Judgements, Decisions, Sentence
Recommendations, and Plea Bargaining. Unfortunately the obliteration of
an obscure trail does not negate the consequence.