beecee

My point although only a minor one was on your comment I mean why the fuck would you assume it's not a fair one? Unless of course you live in Iraq, or Iran, or some African nation controlled by some despot.

The research was published in the journal Nature Communications. Source: University of Tokyo https://newatlas.com/biology/rna-evolution-origin-life/ RNA molecules can replicate in a process like evolution, which may have implications for the origins of life, according to a new study Researchers at the University of Tokyo have created an RNA molecule that can not just replicate, but “evolve” into a diverse range of more complex molecules. This find could plug a major gap in the puzzle of how life on Earth began. Exactly how life arose from non-living matter is one of the most profound mysteries of science. It’s long been hypothesized that RNA acted as a kind of precursor to DNA – if these simple molecules existed in the “primordial soup” of early Earth, they could have begun self-replicating and diversified into a range of forms. As the molecules became more complex, they could eventually have given rise to cells with DNA molecules, birthing all forms of life we see today. As neat as this explanation would be, it remained unknown whether or not RNA molecules could actually undergo this kind of evolution. So for the new study, the Tokyo researchers conducted a long-term RNA replication experiment. The team incubated RNA replicase molecules in droplets of water encased in oil, at 37 °C (98.6 °F) for five hours at a time. Then nutrients were added, diluting the solution to one-fifth of the original concentration, and the mix was stirred before being left to incubate for another five hours. This process was repeated over 240 cycles, for a total of 1,200 hours of experiment time. more at link...............

Perhaps answer the questions without your long drawn out political opinions and tiresome criticisms of society in general. That's nice. I tend to avoid labels, and simply try and live according to what I see as morally correct and sensible, while holding science and the scientific methodology as the desired goal.

No, it is certainly not the crux of the matter. It is a point of divergence. Only if you are of the wrong philsophical opinion that wrong is absolute. The only absolute I see are criminals, wrong-doers and terrorists on one hand, and potential innocent victims on the other. The latter trumps the former. My what should and what would happen are similar. You maybe arrested as justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Your extenuating circumstances would almost certainly see you acquitted, whether your actions were successful or otherwise. Of course if they weren't successful, you may well be dead, anyway, along with thousands of others. You are truly incapable of leaving your philsophical, political bias out of this aren't you? 🤭🤣 Imaginable situations if possible can certainly be realistic ones. Wrong again. I didn't take any issue despite your dramatisation of it. I simply showed that philosophy in essence is a "soft science" where opinions are paramount, and where inevitably one philsopher is always arguing that all others are jackasses. Because that's philosophy. You are appearing rather desperate. If what you suggest was the norm, then we may have planes falling out of the sky, trains coming off tracks, tall buildings toppling over etc etc. We allow and prepare for all contingencies, and possible safety concerns. Really, your suggestion is bordering on silly. But that;s just a non philosophers opinion over a philsophers opnion.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy In this case study there is also a substantial moral justification for torture, albeit one that many moral absolutists do not find compelling. Consider the following points: (1) The police reasonably believe that torturing the terrorist will probably save thousands of innocent lives; (2) the police know that there is no other way to save those lives; (3) the threat to life is more or less imminent; (4) the thousands about to be murdered are innocent – the terrorist has no good, let alone decisive, justificatory moral reason for murdering them; (5) the terrorist is known to be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for planning, transporting, and arming the nuclear device and, if it explodes, he will be (jointly with the other terrorists) morally responsible for the murder of thousands. In addition to the above set of moral considerations, consider the following points. The terrorist is culpable on two counts. Firstly, the terrorist is forcing the police to choose between two evils, namely, torturing the terrorist or allowing thousands of lives to be lost. Were the terrorist to do what he ought to do, namely, disclose the location of the ticking bomb, the police could refrain from torturing him. This would be true of the terrorist, even if he were not actively participating in the bombing project. Secondly, the terrorist is in the process of completing his (jointly undertaken) action of murdering thousands of innocent people. He has already undertaken his individual actions of, say, transporting and arming the nuclear device; he has performed these individual actions (in the context of other individual actions performed by the other members of the terrorist cell) in order to realise the end (shared by the other members of the cell) of murdering thousands of Londoners. In refusing to disclose the location of the device the terrorist is preventing the police from preventing him from completing his (joint) action of murdering thousands of innocent people.[14] To this extent the terrorist is in a different situation from a bystander who happens to know where the bomb is planted but will not reveal its whereabouts, and in a different situation from someone who might have inadvertently put life at risk (Miller (2005); Hill (2007)). In conclusion, the view that it is, all things considered, morally wrong to torture the terrorist in the scenario outlined faces very serious objections; and it is difficult to see how these objections can be met. It is plausible, therefore, that there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible to torture someone.

Great! we disagree. But my facts and common sense decency, and concern for innocent lives, (as opposed to some airy fairy philsophical stance) still stand, despite your unsupported rhetoric to the contrary, and always will. Might actually start a thread on why philsophers are so offended by any critique of their postion! 😆

I respectfully suggest you read the OP with regards to relevant points. We are having open discussion. But it appears to me we have a couple of participants that are embracing a "holier then thou" persona, simply because they have done presumably some course in philosophy. Then that old familiar quote becomes evident, ( about philsophers arguing that all others are jackasses)particularly when a non philsopher argues against that philosophy. In actual fact, in the first instance, I am arguing from a ethically morally correct position, in that innocent lives far, far outweight any consideration for the perpetrators of evil. In the second instance, I am arguing that while I support laws and edicts against torture, just as I do against killing another human, that on very rare occasions, we may need to disregard those laws and edicts. In the third instance, I am arguing that such rare occurences when we may need to use such means, makes them morally correct, whether or not we are successful in saving the innocent lives at peril. In the forth instance, I am also saying that guilt can be 100% certain, or at least beyond any reasonable doubt. In the fifth instance I am arguing that is the rare circumstances when situations arise as being discussed, and as per the previous points, then the normal judicial system maybe put aside, and certainly would be in those circumstances. In the sixth instance, I am pretty sure that in a normal westernised democratic society, where some low life puts at risk the lives of thousands of innocents, then that society would support the decisions made, whether successful or not.

You can misconstrue whatever you like. It's truly amazing how offended philsophers can be, when shown how airy fairy their actual discipline is...I have also shown an example or two of less then "good faith " arguments..... Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?) American writer. (The Devil's Dictionary, 1911) Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) German Philosopher Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Sorry MSC that you have chosen to take the road you have. You previously were making some sense and avoiding insults and condascending. No, we emphatically do agree. We agree with the UN sanctions and laws against torture...we agree that irrespective of those sanctions and laws, that on rare occasions, situations can develop when torture is the only option left to avoid the demise of many innocent people. Of course those rare occasions are not straight foward.

Sure you did. We have 25 pages with probable examples and your police/forensic examples were non applicable. Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to give an example from a reputable source of course. The first world tower attempt of course was nothing like the "who would have thunk it" methodology of 19 terrorists entering the USA, undertaking flying lessons, hijacking four planes, smashing into the Pentagon, and each of the towers. Luckily the fourth plane had some home made heros on board, who took things into their own hands, and averted more death and destruction. 😊 You have an interesting round about way admitting someone was correct. Oh! OK. Interesting analogy if I may...at this time in Australia we have a very conservative Liberal government in power, who are operating on a "fuck you Jack, I'm alright" scenario. At least until the next election, I am in the minority as I voted for the Labor party. And if Labor fail to oust them at the next elections in a couple of months, I will still be in the minority, but certainly I will keep on working for the imo good cause, never resigned to anything less. In Australia, we call that "beating around the bush" or in Northern American english, avoiding the actual point...bringing up many myriads of examples and remote possibilities so that you can avoid talking about the important issue at hand or the actual subject matter. Plus of course getting back into the nitty gritty and actual circumstances, as I have mentioned many times, you have actually agreed with what me and Intoscience are putting to you. You agree you would do this lesser wrong. Although in my opinion, the lesser wrong actually becomes a "right" and is morally the correct decision to undertake. I agree with the sensible notion intoscience put....Is it right to kill someone? (answer no) Is torture OK? (answer no) But circumstances can exist where either torture and/or killing, is the only option open. That's the question...that is the circumstances/ethics being discussed. That's an example of answering the question honestly, without beating around the bush. My lifestyle and interactions and experiences over 77 years, tells me he is certainly in the minority. Actually and evidently it is the opposite taking place. Peterkin agrees with me and has admitted to considering torture in rare one off scenarios, but is now only left with maintaining a purely philsophical argument against that. Bashing philsophy? ☺️ There are different philsophies being put with the scenarios in question. You are appearing to demand that yours is correct and mine is wrong? Which I interpret as a pretentious methodology of maintaining ethical and moral standings for a criminal/terrorist, and putting at risk the lives of thousands of innocent people? I am certainly maintaining that irrespective of whatever means undertaken, those innocent lives deserve every chance possible.

You make the choice, colliding philsophies, or colliding "pretend" philsophers, noting that I don't really see myself as a philsopher. My only concern rests with the innocent potential victims. Are you sure? Are you sure he will confess? It appears the he has the power of life and death with regards to a whole heap of innocent potential victims. And say you do finally make him speak and reveal the whereabouts of the child and/or the thousands of potential bomb victims. Isn't that scenario of saving lives vastly philosophically and morally ethically superior to some imagined power feeling? In the current scenarios under discussion, with thousands of lives at stake, is it even reasonable to suggest that any egotistical feelings of power would ever eventuate? No single figure of authority would be making that decision anyway I suggest. Absolute power is not in the question. We are talking about rare circumstances where consideration should be given of extreme means to gain information to save innocent lives, after all else has been tried and failed. We are speaking of westernised democratic societies where absolute power does not exist, and the banning of torture is part of the laws of that country....under normal everyday conditions. And of course when people start waxxing lyrical about various other scenarios,and what if's and perhap's and exaggerated rhetoric about torturing someone for stealing a loaf of bread, is when I start to see the critical side of philsophy when taken too far. On the highlighted part by me, sadly I don't think that can ever eventuate...the soft sciences will always find it difficult to establish proper measurable quantities and interpret human behaviour on the basis of scientific investigations. We are emotional creatures and while those emotions can be put aside for the hard stuff like physics, chemistry, cosmology, the soft sciences are controlled by those emotions to a great extent.

I mentioned earlier, imo it will take the Russian people to bring about his demise.

If it means the demise of Putin, a far better Russia I would hope. Just as we have a far better USA with the demise of Trump. Infrastructure can be rebuilt, and on that score, the Ukraine will rise again.

No more scripted then your own scenarios, but at least I have given a real life example supporting one aspect, that being 100% certainty of guilt, and more then a few reputable links supporting the rare exceptions that may see the need to depart from the ban on torture, for a higher ethically morally correct stance...that being the saving of innocent lives. Who would have thunk 9/11 was possible for example? Just as you have said you would, and most everyone else admitting to some consideration. Í'm not sure if there is any fun. I was commenting on your apparent side step, or otherwise fecetious post as follows, again. Law enforcement is a necessary evil, like any authoritarian orginization. I respect them until given reason not to. And that doesn't mean (as you seem to portray in many of your posts) a blanket lack of respect. It means a lack of respect for those bad eggs that have brought the force into disrepute, and the support of all efforts to get rid of them. But hey, we are going over old ground again, aren't we?

What will be left of Ukraine?

Perhaps you need to read properly what I said, and stop pretending? The agent/authority/police or whoever is on the scene may have captured the paedophile in the car after a reported sighting. The child maybe with the other paedophile in another car after they were observed snatching the child....you know! any number of circumstances to be able to conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or even 100% guilt. It was presented to show you can have absolute certainty of a crime. That doesn't mean that another scenario, say with a terrorist, that has arrogantly admitted guilt, was seen stealing the bomb, or perhaps dobbed in by another, and after all other means have been exhausted, and as you openly admit to, that torture maybe considered. And you certainly do not decide what is applicable and what is not applicable. Yes certainly much injustices, but obviously you need to start a thread re crooked/bad police as you seem so obsessed with that concept. This thread is about the use of torture when all else has failed, on kidnappers, paedophiles, terrorists and criminals in general. I respect the Police and authorities until given reason to do otherwise. Wrong. Under normal circumstances the courts and legal systems decide the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We are not dealing with normal circumstances, gut feelings, hunches, or prejudices. We are dealing with one off, rare happenings, with knowledge and evidence of 100% gulit and/or beyond any reasonable doubt, where innocent lives are at stake. No, its justice as determined by the authorities in extenuating circumstances, where innocent lives are at stake. It's what a normal westernised democratic society would determine as correct in support of said authorities. One must begin to wonder...are you playing games? Was that just an example of fecetiousness? Perhaps I am too prepared to accept what you say at face value? Coupled with your admittance that you would indeed consider torture, I'm beginning to wonder what your purpose is in continuing the same old, same old questions/statements/conclusions/misinterpretations and errors.

Wrong on many levels. With the kidnapper/s he may have been seen in the getaway car, he may openly admit to it, the child's teddy bear may be in the car with other personal items, phone calls may have been tapped, and probably many other reasons I can't think of at this time. All cause to conclude he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And worth considering in such a rare emergency situation, a speed up of DNA identification could also be undertaken. Certainly all as viable as your own fabricated notions against guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And you were informed also that that real live example was to illustrate we can know with 100% certainty of guilt. And I am only researching local cases in my area. The world is a big place! Legally speaking yes, under normal circumstances, yes, but we are not under normal circumstances, and actually, needed common sense would prevail. That is to do whatever is needed to save innocent lives, up to and including torture, which of course you have already agreed to. No trial is necessary, no formal proof of guilt is required, because we can know, and do know, that we already have the guilty party due to the proponderence of evidence to assume beyond a reasonable doubt. In such rare cases, the normal legal requirements would I suggest, be dispensed with, in preference to upholding a much higher ethic morally correct decision in saving innocent lives. For the nth time, my moral ethics tell me that the first and main priority in any rare circumstances being discussed, are with the potential victims, and everything humanly possible should and must be done to protect those innocents. My life experiences have confirmed that to me many times.

I'm quite comfortable is admitting that I sometimes lie, and often am not totally forthcoming with the whole truth, for what I see as the greater good. And sometimes for my own benefit, but at the same time, not detracting from anyone else.. I have though never lied to cause harm or injury to anyone else, and would never lie to detract from, or harm their reputation for any reason. Anyone claiming they never lie, is well lying, at worst, or being less then forthcoming with the whole truth at best.

To the contrary, and as I have shown in real life cases, yes you can be sure of a 100% guilt at best, and guilt beyond reasonable doubt at worst. Either is sufficient to proceed with torture, the last resort on rare extraordinary occasions. This claim in realty (that we cannot be sure we have tried every way) is an example of philsophical pedant. We have had numerous suggestions here, including a nice cup of tea and biscuits....hours upon hours of questioning without sleep...and/or whatever else the assembled authorities can dream up. Revenge??🤣 Try self defence. And obviously it worked. Whatever other methods were on the cards is neither here nor there. He, (my Son) under advice from me, defended himself and consequently probably saved another 4 year old (Andrew) from growing up to be an out and out bully. Well said, particularly the highlighted parts by me. Again, couldn't agree anymore with the above wise statement. If I may add to it, and as I have said earlier, these types of threads simply develop into philsophical arguments, with one philosopher, calling the other a jackass. Reminds me again of one of my favourite quotes, "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken. Now heaven forbid, I am not referring to anyone in particular, but just the whole damn exersise that has been going on now over 24 pages. As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies. 😏 😉 As was argued simarilly in the justice/punishment thread, ideally, it would be nice and heart warming if we could genuinly rehabilitate all criminals and wrong-doers, and eliminate all jails...ideally that is!! But what reasonable individual amongst us believe that such a utopia can ever exist. In essence it is nothing but a philsophical dream. The facts are we are all human...we are all emotional beings...while science does do its best to leave emotions aside, in the soft sciences, as per psychology, sociology, anthropology, and even political science, (the sciences that interpret human behavior) that is damn well near impossible. Unlike the hard sciences, (physics, chemistry cosmology etc) we are unable to establish any real, strict measurable criteria in those soft sciences. For the nth time, my moral ethics tell me that the first and main priority in any rare circumstances being discussed, are with the potential victims, and everything humanly possible should and must be done to protect those innocents. My life experiences have confirmed that to me many times.

As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies. 😏 😉 Adds a bit of colour also do the old drab black and white! 🤭

A down vote I see. 🥱 It seems that any possible reality that is raised, that conflicts with some individual's personal philosophy, is not tolerated by certain short sighted pretend philosophers. The debate and my view and relevant facts will continue irrespective.

In fact many ways may prevail. We can only hope for the best outcome, ie the saving of innocent lives. If the terrorist fails to confess and the bomb goes off, thousands are killed, but things then are made much harder for terrorists, perhaps even bordering on the removal of what some may see as normal rights for normal citizens. Makes it harder for everyone. Convicted paedophiles are on a name list in my country also, and other exclusions as to their life styles are automatically invoked if convicted.

Isn't it? Or is that an avoidance of a revealing aspect of your philosophy? Or more likely when focusing on the scenarios at hand.... (1) Crime is commited. (2) Paedohpile/terrorist caught with irrefutable, evidence of beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. (3) All means possible are undertaken to reveal the whereabouts of bomb and/or vicitms to no avail. (4) The morality of the situation/s with innocent lives sitting in the balance, sees a decision to use more forceful means, and torture. (5) Criminal in the ideal situation reveals the information. (6)Potential Innocent victims removed from dangerous situation and/or dangerous situation averted. (7) Criminal undergoes trial after being charged. (justice must be seen to be done) (8)Criminal is convicted beyond reasonable doubt and the extraordinary situation taken into account. (9) Criminal is sentenced. (10) Charges are brought with regards to torture by police/authorities, but the extraordinary situation, sees those charges summarily dismissed. (11) Further laws and prohibitions are innacted to lessen and prevent the actions of terrorism and/or paedophiles such as removal of parole chances, wearing ankle bracelets etc. (12) Government and law agencies are praised commended, and re-elected for their common sense and reasonable approach to the incident/s and the saving of innocent lives. Conclusion: The resultant laws and actions to reduce terrorism, mean some incoveneince with stricter control/s and access to airlines etc, for society in general, but it is appreciated and accepted considering the times we live in. Kidnappers, criminals, and paedophiles now have their names on permanent files, and may be forced to wear ankle bracelets and have their movement tracked. They are also forced to not live within certain distances of schools, kindagartens and family oriented suburbs. It's an example of a real life 100% guilty situation.

Yes, I can't disagree with that, but the law needs to draw a firm line in practicality, as devious humans will and can take advantage. That imo is slightly different to pedant with regards to philosophy. I believe everyone that has contributed to this thread agrees with that. And for all intents and purposes, that's what the law of the land says and which I support, under reasonably normal everyday circumstances. Being locked up in jail, to some is torture. My feelings and philsophy though, are still primarily with innocent victims, and doing whatever is possible to avoid harm to those vicitms. Another scenario if I may? Around 20 years ago, a few days before Xmas, I was standing in line at a 7/11 store waiting to be served, when in burst 5 young hoodlums, all around 15/16 years of age. Without warning they started to upend display cabinets, pulling down produce, tipping over a slurpy machine, and then just as quickly, all started to run out of the store like the cowards they obviously were. To run out of the store though, they had to run past us 5 people standing in line. (The store was being run by 2 little asian girls who were now in tears) As they ran by me I was thinking what little arseholes they were and instinctively as the last of them headed near my, I stuck out my arm, ( stiff arm tackle like) and collared him around the neck. He went down like a ton of bricks, (with me on top of him) while the other 4 all looked back and continued on their escape. The coppers came took him away, interviewed me and the others, and that was it, at least that's what I thought. Two weeks later there is a knock on my front door, and here is the same young bloke with his parents. They thanked me for my actions, and said their boy was now grounded indefinitley and banned from seeing the others. Was I wrong in what I did? Well you seem mighty overly critical of the system, and actually just about every mainstream system that has been discussed. from where I sit. And of course we are speaking of extraordinary rare circumstances, as you know. You miss the point, or as previous are being purposely obtuse. We are speaking of 100% certainty of guilt at best, and beyond any reasonable doubt at worst. eg: see the example of the rape of the little girl as an example of 100% certainty, and yet he still faced a trial where he was "presumed innocent"until shown to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He is now serving thankfully, a life sentence with no allowance for parole.

I'm saying you most certainly can have reasonable knowledge of what reasonable people, in any reasonable society, would consider beyond reasonable doubt. Just because there maybe rare occasions where it doesn't work, is no reason to discard the present judicial system, just as because we (democratic westernised countries) have edicts against torture, does not mean that it is absolutely absolute and set in concrete. There can be exceptions, which you yourself have said you may secumb to...All you need is the foresight to see the moral superiority of your decision. Except in exceptional rare scenarios, where innocent lives are at stake, and that are under discussion, and as I have shown, where 100% certianty of guilt is know, or even a "beyond reasonable doubt"scenario. Your 51% figure is a furphy. See previous reply. That's justice and part of the judicial system. The criminal, paedohpile, or terrorist has no absolute forbidden minimum. Why should we when we are 100% sure of his guilt, or he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, offer him the benefits of the reasonable ethical morality of a normal democratic western society, particularly when many innocent lives are at stake.

Can I give another take on that? Philsophy in general, imvho, is a collection of scenarios, moral standings, ethics, nature of reality, truth, (if truth exists at all) and can be sometimes pedantic in its application. It involves imo from observational data that I have seen, one philsopher arguing that others are wrong...Catholicism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc etc....Should we have police forces? jails? (my answer, while evil exists, ( and it always will) of course, yes) is it morally acceptable to sometimes lie to a person? (my answer, yes sometimes) ( of which there is a thread) Is it wrong to re-enforce a child's belief in Santa Clause and fairies etc? (my answer, No) Likewise and analogous, while torture is inherently wrong, it is not and cannot be seen as an absolute. There can be and maybe exceptions in rare circumstances, and when innocent victims are involved. Don't worry, I have given those figures and links..... I would logically say that "beyond any reasonable doubt" means, that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, and that it is clear and convincing evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt Legal systems have tended to avoid quantifying the reasonable doubt standard (for example as "over 90% probability")[2] although legal scholars from a variety of analytical perspectives have argued in favor of quantification of the criminal standard of proof. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=is+beyond+reasoanble+doubt+51%%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160.16856j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent. https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/5/2/159/927739 quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard Abstract There are many reasons for objecting to quantifying the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of criminal law as a percentage probability. They are divided into ethical and policy reasons, on the one hand, and reasons arising from the nature of logical probabilities, on the other. It is argued that these reasons are substantial and suggest that the criminal standard of proof should not be given a precise number. But those reasons do not rule out a minimal imprecise number. ‘Well above 80%’ is suggested as a standard, implying that any attempt by a prosecutor or jury to take the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to be 80% or less should be ruled out as a matter of law. Of course its relevant! Your unsupported statement of 51% with reference to beyond any reasonable doubt, assured that relevancy. So you are saying the judicial system is no good? And the average person, (juror) is an Idiot and/or dishonest, or ignorant? So, tell me, what do you propose to replace our democratic judicial system? The paedophiles, the kidnappers, the terrorists and the criminals are the perpetrators of their crimes. They chose and set their moral standings at those levels associated with those said crimes which are at sewer level...they know they are against the law, they know they are forbidden in any reasonable society. The criminal, paedohpile, or terrorist has no absolute forbidden minimum. Why should we when we are 100% sure of his guilt, or he has been found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, offer him the benefits of the reasonable ethical morality of a normal democratic western society, particularly when many innocent lives are at stake.