One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an understanding that the legal system is both slow and tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well before a system designed to be conclusive would.
The law is more about what can be proven than it is about what is true, and for people who know that, legal judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.
A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well before a system designed to be conclusive would.
The law is more about what can be proven than it is about what is true, and for people who know that, legal judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.