>>59
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 right
Do you think it's fine to let people park their vehicles in the middle of the street so that it impedes the flow of traffic? Is it ok for people to drive through your property to try and route around the cars parked on the street? Do you think it's fine when people knowingly sell you fish that has dangerous levels of mercury? How about when people dispose their industrial waste improperly it leaks into your water source? Is it fine for people to build a mine next to your house causing pollution to the area and destabilizing the foundations of your house? What if you see a live animal act, an animal hurts a viewer and it can be shown that reasonable measures wasn't taken beforehand?
The point is to establish baselines that maintain social order because people act to the detriment of their neigbors. Rules and punishments are the way humanity achieves this order. This is what I mean by social order. We all live in a society and
if everyone maintained their own order without causing detriment, nobody would need formal rules and punishments to regulate one another: we'd all be doing it individually.
So it's okay to indict innocent people as long as order is maintained?
It's not good to indict innocent people. What we can do is apply the principle of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a case. If there is reasonable doubt, the accused shouldn't receive such a harsh punishment like a death sentence.