Then how many innocent lives would have been lost if those wrongfully convicted weren't allowed to appeal? Plenty is what.
Far fewer than under the current system.
You acknowledge that a judge has right to counsel from peers and experts before making his ruling which in fairness, he would have to have.
Not only is it acknowledged, it's expected.
Everyone involved could arrive at the same conclusion based on the evidence available at the time so a judge can make what appears to be the correct decision with all of the information at his disposal at the time.
So why do you need more points of accountability when one will suffice?
Further down the line new evidence can come to light that undermines his former ruling
Why do you assume that this will be the norm?
so then what? Haul him up and charge him with being accountable for a mistake
All the more reason to make the best effort of uncovering the truth, using the resources at his disposal.
cos that sounds like scapegoating.
And if he did his due diligence, then he should be fine, no?
There shouldn't be a single point of accountability
Why? Because you say so?
If two or three witnesses are enough to establish a strong likelihood or guilt/innocence then well and good.
Why do you doubt God when He says that two or three are sufficient to establish a matter?
If they aren't then more is obviously required.
If you cannot establish guilt with two or three witnesses, then you don't have sufficient evidence to establish guilt, and thus, there would be no trial.
You've already acknowledged that more than three is okay.
But "two or three" is the minimum needed.
Judicial negligence is one thing and see above.
There really isn't
I have no idea what you're referring to here, because you refuse to respond directly to my points, and instead provide a blanket response to my posts.
and okay, we have a different system to ones that primitive bronze age tribes
were limited to
Why do you assume God's moral standards cannot apply to the modern era?
but under yours there'd be people carted off to a swift execution who weren't even guilty of the crime.
It would happen, but it would be extremely rare.
That's as acceptable as letting someone off on a technicality, that is to say not at all.
Of course it's unacceptable. But humans are fallible.
Your hyperbole about it being a completely broken system is just your own supposition.
It has faults as outlined already and improvements do need making but it's not as bad as you like to exaggerate.
I'm not exaggerating. You cannot put new wine into an old wineskin.
Your guarantees that your ideal of the DP would practically result in zero crime is nothing but hot air, no matter how much you may ardently believe such to be the case.
Well it's a good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it?
Cases where guilt/innocence are proved beyond doubt remove human fallibility from the equation.
No, they don't, because even those cases require humans, fallible humans, to make the final judgement, to present the evidence, to investigate the crime.
You talk about prison being insufficient punishment and call it inhumane?
Which is it?
It is insufficient because it's not harsh enough.
It is inhumane because it treats the criminals like animals, which they are not.
I don't see why that's so hard to understand.
You make it sound like something that nobody would want on the one hand (which I sure wouldn't)
You seem to want prisons to punish criminals, do you not?
and then make it sound like a picnic.
Compared to some neighborhoods, it's a picnic, sadly.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I've seen enough on prisons from my country to America to along with being friends with someone who's served time to know fine well I would't wanna spend a single day in one.
Yet you want to enforce that on potentially innocent people, simply because enough evidence could not be provided to prove, "beyond a shadow of a doubt," or what have you, that they are guilty?