By Steve Beckow, Golden Age of Gaia
There’s a maxim in refugee law that the benefit of the doubt goes to the claimant.
It’s a good rule of thumb to adopt in financial stewardship as well – part of a foundation of maxims that we could benefit from considering. And so I wanted to give my understanding of it.
Not a legal interpretation. I’m not qualified for that. But the way I see it.
If a matter is in doubt, and for one reason or another it cannot be settled by any possible or viable means, then any benefit that accrues from the lack or absence of proof must go to the refugee claimant.
The state, in refugee cases, cannot use the fact that an unsubstantiated doubt exists as a reason for turning down the claimant. “I doubt your story, sir, and therefore I’m turning you down.” That’s not justice taking its course and seen to be taking its course.
And so in our financial decisions, when a matter is in doubt, if the doubt cannot be substantiated or proven, in the absence of proof, any benefit that accrues should go to the applicant.
This maxim itself arises out of the notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If they’re innocent until proven guilty, then a person whose story is merely doubted remains innocent until proven otherwise.
So too, our applicants’ credibility remains established until proven otherwise.
You can see that a whole way of seeing things and deciding on them arises out of these various underpinnings. To summarize the three we mentioned here:
- A person is innocent until proven guilty.
- The benefit of the doubt goes to the applicant.
- Our applicants’ credibility remains established until shown to be otherwise.
There’s more to say on the matter if we want to begin to think about New-Earth organizational behavior.