Although dealing with this issue is more difficult, I also still keep remembering the question I asked before regarding the requirement of a beyond a reasonable doubt proof in alleged self defense cases. The question is if you accept that a mere reasonable doubt would prevent incriminate the killer aren't you incriminating the killed based on a mere reasonable doubt? If, for example, you do not incriminate A for killing B based on 20 percent probability that his allegation of being attacked by B is true aren't you at the same time incriminating B despite 80 percent probability of being innocent of what was alleged against him?
No comments:
Post a Comment