It’s a bit tougher, which is why I usually didn’t bother. I’d start by accusing them of robbing a bank, and when they would inevitably say they didn’t, I’d point out that my made-up testimony alone is just as verifiable as their legitimate one alone. Then I’d explain how being able to convince a jury of people - who weren’t present at the time of the crime - that a specific person is guilty is a good way to make sure there’s actually enough verifiable evidence to ensure it happened, and isn’t just a setup by someone lying to get them in trouble.
If the crime was so blatant that people obviously saw it happen, there would ideally be enough physical evidence that the crime happened, and if there isn’t, then it would still be preferable to let a criminal walk free rather than make an innocent person go to jail because they couldn’t prove they didn’t do what someone else said they did.
The tough thing is that some people have too large of an ego, and will just ignore that entire point, thinking that the people they “know” to be criminals should just be locked up because “it’s obvious,” and then we get to the situation happening now.
Relevant quote from Anathem (2008) by Neal Stephenson:
“You say of course there are criminals, but if you look at a particular person, how do you know whether or not he is a criminal? Are criminals branded? Tattooed? Locked up? Who decides who is and isn’t a criminal? Does a woman with shaved eyebrows say ‘you are a criminal’ and ring a silver bell? Or is it rather a man in a wig who strikes a block of wood with a hammer? Do you thrust the accused through a doughnut-shaped magnet? Or use a forked stick that twitches when it is brought near evil? Does an Emperor hand down the decision from his throne written in vermilion ink and sealed with black wax, or is it rather that the accused must walk barefoot across a griddle? Perhaps there is ubiquitous moving picture [technology]—what you’d call [video cameras]—that know all, but their secrets may only be unlocked by a court of eunuchs each of whom has memorized part of a long number. Or perhaps a mob shows up and throws rocks at the suspect until he’s dead.”
It’s a bit tougher, which is why I usually didn’t bother. I’d start by accusing them of robbing a bank, and when they would inevitably say they didn’t, I’d point out that my made-up testimony alone is just as verifiable as their legitimate one alone. Then I’d explain how being able to convince a jury of people - who weren’t present at the time of the crime - that a specific person is guilty is a good way to make sure there’s actually enough verifiable evidence to ensure it happened, and isn’t just a setup by someone lying to get them in trouble.
If the crime was so blatant that people obviously saw it happen, there would ideally be enough physical evidence that the crime happened, and if there isn’t, then it would still be preferable to let a criminal walk free rather than make an innocent person go to jail because they couldn’t prove they didn’t do what someone else said they did.
The tough thing is that some people have too large of an ego, and will just ignore that entire point, thinking that the people they “know” to be criminals should just be locked up because “it’s obvious,” and then we get to the situation happening now.
Relevant quote from Anathem (2008) by Neal Stephenson: