It’s not their motivation I’m thinking about: What does the justice system DO in that case?
The determination of guilt comes from the COURT ,not by feelings. They may feel paranoid towards the court but the court still has to make a determination of some kind.
Maybe a limbo zone somewhere for the non-compliant? Or innocence if they don’t comply? I know the solution we have in that case; it’s an admission of guilt.
but if you see other possibilities that a court could pursue to INCLUDE the paranoid in some “not guilty not innocent not mentlally ill but [x]”, I think it would be great
rbitration is usually the best route, although the least satisfying, it’s clean. Settlements means there’s been some fighting but let’s just get this over with.
But the whole full court case is expensive, time consuming, involves a LOT of people and a bit
I think it’s because I don’t see the significance of the “guilt vs innocence” determination here.
I see it as procedural; along with settling, arbitration etc.
I don’t see it as a morality thing. But I _think_ perhaps that you are seeing it as a morality thing; tying to intent, will, wishing, wants, choices, etc.
I believe he was lying on Joe Rogan, likely just via gabbing, saying what worked in that situation.
a) tell people to stop on multiple occasions?
Let’s say he did.
If he did, did he:
a) Stop talking talking crap about the parents?
b) Continue talking crap about the parents?