Replies

The law trumps the truth.

If the law did trump truth then those the law declared to be guilty would truly be guilty. If you truly believe that law trumps truth I would like to ask about your religious persuasion, but you are, of course, free to ignore that request.

The quote I pointed you to indicated that the Constitution does not consider people guilty of breaking an invalid law. The point of the appeals process is to force the lower courts to accept this already existing truth. If this truth were not alreday existing then a person would not be eligible from release when the law he violated was declared unConstitutional because it would have been valid when s/he was convicted, rather than erroneously considered valid as it actually is.

It seems to me that you consider effect more imortant than intent or circumstances. Would you convict someone who takes a life in self defense of murder because the end result is the same? Would you consider them as guilty as the person who maliciously intended to take a life?

If the law did trump truth then those the law declared to be guilty would truly be guilty.

Nope. That doesn't make sense as you will agree if you analyze it.

Religion.

It has nothing to do with religion. Just ask an atheist or a very religious person or a legal scholar.

...already existing truth...

Sometimes we confuse facts with truth. New facts can undo a conviction whether or not those facts are the truth.

It seems to me that you consider effect more imortant than intent or circumstances.

You keep misreading me.

Would you convict someone who takes a life in self defense of murder because the end result is the same? Would you consider them as guilty as the person who maliciously intended to take a life?

I would not vote to convict someone who clearly acted in self defense. No, I don't consider it to be murder.