In the old days we used to call up citizen tribunals to determine guilt or innocence. Or perhaps that was just in movies. I guess we don't know an awful lot about how truth is determined in this world but the news, and the nightly stories about the news seem to have decided that a lot of conjecture and politicking seems to be involved. It is unclear how much that is true but it sure seems to be true and that is more than half the battle.
We do know this. Something like 95% of cases do not go to trial. This is because most defendants are put into the terrible situation of being presented the evidence the prosecution will go to trial and told to compare that to the cost of defending against it. This balance is then weighed against years of life and thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. Evidence falls short to a kind of political reality. Same in mainstream (and radical) politics. Evidence is used to make an argument but not necessarily in open court. Evidence is used as a type of subterfuge against rules/power used as a different type of subterfuge. It seems exhausting.
In the old days, like some dusty cowboy movie, principles squared off on the main road through town. Today is seems a lot more like Lucy on the candy line. To what extent do you use evidence based reasoning in your anarchist politics? Do you agree that the way it has been ignored or avoided in mainstream consensus reality is a problem? How so?