| 97alexk said: In many cases they were 100% that they knew it was the killer, turned out the real killer made fake evidence, so an innocent guy just knew he was gonna die because he was innocent, imagine that. I hate death sentence |
That is not what I meant but I can understand why you took my post that way. Those people may have believed to be 100% sure that those individuals were guilty, but when I am talking about 100% certainty I am talking about an almost unexplainable method of assurance to determine innocence and guilt, a method that if we try to consider it's possibility of existence it would pretty much dance with the impossible. A method that surpasses the human senses and limits of what they can know and destroys any possible agenda of any person involved (witness, accused, judge, jury, lawyers, etc.) that would try to lie and aim in declaring wrongfully someone as guilty or under innocence.
I am talking about omniscience level method here.
A method such as that one is impossible now and most likely always will.
I would try to appeal to a science-fiction method but Minority Report even fucked that one for me.
To put it simpler: if we could know the truth of whether someone killed and innocent person/people, the truth, I would be ok with the death penalty but since that is impossible then I can't support it. Even simpler: we can't know for sure whether someone killed an innocent person so I can't support it, but if we could, then kill them all.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1
