This may be pedantry, but is it correct to say “irrefutable evidence”? I know that in the real world the adjective ‘irrefutable’ has desirable rhetorical force but evidence is often not what is contended or in need of refuting. “Irrefutable evidence” on the face of it means means “yes, we can all agree it is evidence”. A comical example that comes to mind is from Quintilian ’s treatise that I’ll paraphrase and embellish:
“yes, it is true I killed him with that knife, but it was justified because he was an adulterer and by the laws of Rome Legal”
In (modern) courts of law you have Admissible evidence, which is evidence that, at least in U.S. Federal courts, governed by a length list of rules including relevance, the competency to give testimony of certain witnesses, exceptions to hearsay.
However you also have, among many other types, “insufficient evidence”. What is not being refuted is that it is evidence, only that the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proof that leads to the conclusion “beyond reasonable doubt”.
An item of evidence may be irrefutable, in as much as yes—it is evidence, no one is questioning that it is evidence, and it may be impossible to deny the inference that is being drawn from that evidence. But that it alone meets the burden of proof.
As far as I understand “irrefutable evidence” is not a legal term but one of the court of public opinion: where rhetorical force is preeminent. Perhaps it is useful then to say it in certain cases, but is it rational and correct?
The original refers more to points of argument than evidence: Take for example the following case. “You killed a man.” “Yes, I killed him.” 7 Agreed, I pass to the defence, which has to produce the motive for the homicide. “It is lawful,” he urges, “to kill an adulterer with his paramour.” Another admitted point, for there is no doubt about the law... https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/7A*.html#ref2
This may be pedantry, but is it correct to say “irrefutable evidence”? I know that in the real world the adjective ‘irrefutable’ has desirable rhetorical force but evidence is often not what is contended or in need of refuting. “Irrefutable evidence” on the face of it means means “yes, we can all agree it is evidence”. A comical example that comes to mind is from Quintilian ’s treatise that I’ll paraphrase and embellish:
“yes, it is true I killed him with that knife, but it was justified because he was an adulterer and by the laws of Rome Legal”
In (modern) courts of law you have Admissible evidence, which is evidence that, at least in U.S. Federal courts, governed by a length list of rules including relevance, the competency to give testimony of certain witnesses, exceptions to hearsay.
However you also have, among many other types, “insufficient evidence”. What is not being refuted is that it is evidence, only that the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proof that leads to the conclusion “beyond reasonable doubt”.
An item of evidence may be irrefutable, in as much as yes—it is evidence, no one is questioning that it is evidence, and it may be impossible to deny the inference that is being drawn from that evidence. But that it alone meets the burden of proof.
As far as I understand “irrefutable evidence” is not a legal term but one of the court of public opinion: where rhetorical force is preeminent. Perhaps it is useful then to say it in certain cases, but is it rational and correct?
The original refers more to points of argument than evidence:
Take for example the following case. “You killed a man.” “Yes, I killed him.” 7 Agreed, I pass to the defence, which has to produce the motive for the homicide. “It is lawful,” he urges, “to kill an adulterer with his paramour.” Another admitted point, for there is no doubt about the law...
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/7A*.html#ref2