>>55
Do you not know the term "beyond a reasonable doubt"? There is so much scrutiny involved before deciding whether one is declared guilty with a punishment of death.
Fuck. See
>>58.
The purpose of law is to maintain order in society.
So it's okay to indict innocent people as long as order is maintained?
These rules are intended to maintain social order by establishing legal punishments and boundaries for certain activity.
I fucking hate the term ``social order'' because it sounds like you're telling people what to do. It sounds like ``you must conform with what society tells you or else you'll break our nice beautiful order''. It's an almost perfect antithesis of civil rights. ``The stupid masses of manipulated cretins think that cybercriminality is dangerous, so let's make laws to lock down general purpose computers and the Internet''; and it's all to maintain a perceived threat to the ``social order''. Absolutely despicable.
If it can be shown that a rule breaker didn't act willfully, there are other ways to deal with their case such as psychiatric care or assigning a responsible guardian.
Hah. I ask you to show me a single murderer or rapist who wasn't sick in the head.