(July 19, 2014 at 8:25 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:You see that's the problem, guilt with zero percent possibility of mistake is highly unlikely, many of those innocent people wrongly convicted were considered to have zero percent chance of being innocent... Every-time someone is sentenced they are considered 100% guilty with no error margin, that's just something the system deduces automatically, if there is no 100% certainty you can't be sentenced for anything... And by the way, the law shouldn't have a moral bias, maybe exceptionally but in generality a law is not meant to reproduce social morals(July 19, 2014 at 7:27 pm)Blackout Wrote: Oh I dislike that argument, by a very simple reason - Everyone who is considered guilty IS 100% guilty. All of those people who were innocent are 100% guilty when convicted, it's not possible to be sentenced to anything without being 100% guilty. The argument of 'we need to be 100% sure' is very volatile. People who were innocent were considered sometime 100% guilty, like all convicts are.
I don't get why this is relevant.
Unless you can prove guilt with zero percent possibility of error, then no guilty verdict in a court can be considered 100% accurate, and as a result, it is morally wrong to hand down a punishment which is 100% irrevocable.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you