Adjusting thresholds in response to incompleteness permits conviction on structurally deficient evidence so long as the numerical bar is lowered, which violates Dworkin's principle that defendants have rights against certain procedural shortcuts regardless of outcome utility.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Dworkin(as the philosopher whose theory is being discussed): Ronald Dworkin was an influential American legal philosopher who argued that law isn't just a set of arbitrary rules, but should be understood through moral principles.
Outcome utility(as used in ethics and law): The practical benefit or usefulness of a particular result—for example, convicting someone might seem useful if it stops crime, but that doesn't justify breaking rules to do it.
Procedural shortcuts(as used in law and ethics): Ways of handling a legal case that skip normal steps or rules to save time or effort, like skipping the right to a full hearing.
Structurally deficient evidence(as used in law and epistemology): Evidence that has fundamental problems with how it's built or presented, meaning it's weak or flawed in basic ways rather than just incomplete.

Based on where you are in your exploration