Jon Beaver wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:48:09 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Well, if they had a REASON to doubt, then they had REASONABLE
doubt, ipso facto.
I say if they have a reason to doubt but DON'T doubt, they should
convict.
No, that would be a violation of their Oath as Jurors, and an
admission of psychosis. Convicting people on "faith" is
something best left to the knuckle-draggin' Neanderthal
religious bleaters and superstitious imbeciles.
Know any of them types, eh Beav?
I say it purely what they believe, not what they ought to
believe or even what they believe they ought to believe, that should
compel their vote.
So you're proposing a Theocratic Legal System based on "faith" ...?
I always knew you were a perverted jackass, Beav.
- Jon Beaver
.
