> The logical endpoint of this argument is that no one can be convicted for genocide without DNA evidence, regardless of how many eyewitnesses saw that person executing people and can identify them on sight.
There are other forms of evidence that a genocide took place other than eyewitness testimony (orders, technical plans, the testimony of subordinates, physical evidence of mass killings). You would hope that a trial on crimes against humanity would have more than just eyewitness testimony.
> I find this unacceptable.
I also find it unacceptable for someone to be convinced based entirely on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony, only to discover they were innocent decades later.
> [edit] There's something called a preponderance of evidence.
"Preponderance of the evidence" (meaning that it is more likely than not) is a lower bar than "beyond reasonable doubt" (which means what it says on the tin). What you described (having multiple corroborating witnesses) is actually not what preponderance of evidence means.
There are other forms of evidence that a genocide took place other than eyewitness testimony (orders, technical plans, the testimony of subordinates, physical evidence of mass killings). You would hope that a trial on crimes against humanity would have more than just eyewitness testimony.
> I find this unacceptable.
I also find it unacceptable for someone to be convinced based entirely on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony, only to discover they were innocent decades later.
> [edit] There's something called a preponderance of evidence.
"Preponderance of the evidence" (meaning that it is more likely than not) is a lower bar than "beyond reasonable doubt" (which means what it says on the tin). What you described (having multiple corroborating witnesses) is actually not what preponderance of evidence means.