What is "hard" evidence? This is a term you've invented. "100% positive"? When are we ever 100% positive? "Smart man's life"? You really think we should have different standards for programmers?
People are routinely convicted of murder on indirect evidence. Evidence is evidence. It's up to the jury to decide how compelling the evidence is. I'm surprised they came back with murder 1, but would have been shocked if they had acquitted: there was a lot of circumstancial evidence.
Evidence is hard if we are 100% positive about its accuracy.
When are we ever 100% positive?
When our decision is based on current technology that we've used to rigorously prove something.
"Smart man's life"? You really think we should have different standards for programmers?
Those are your words, not mine. It would be silly to have different standards based on an artificial rating of a person.
But we should have different standards that reflect the possibility that we're wrong. For example, by limiting prison terms to an absolute maximum of ten years unless we are 100% positive (as defined above) that the person is guilty.
limiting prison terms to an absolute maximum of ten years...
At the risk of repeating myself: Yes, you'd be right to complain if Reiser were being sentenced to death, but he isn't. And it would be sad if Reiser spent 25 or 30 years in prison even though he was innocent... but that might not happen, because at any moment Nina could turn up, dead or alive, and exonerate him.
[EDIT: removed bogus argument I made based on misreading the original article. I promise to get more sleep before my next post. :]
Currently, yes. That (indirect) question is difficult for me, and the answer might change in the future as I become more experienced. (I'm only 20, so what do I know anyway?)
There are proportionally few people who are murderously inclined. It's worth risking them if it means that no innocents are convicted. Perfect murders are unlikely, and they become more unlikely as forensic technology improves. It's best for a prison sentence to be based on a proof, but if we can't be positive about a person's guilt then we should favor the possibility of innocence.
People are routinely convicted of murder on indirect evidence. Evidence is evidence. It's up to the jury to decide how compelling the evidence is. I'm surprised they came back with murder 1, but would have been shocked if they had acquitted: there was a lot of circumstancial evidence.