Human welfare and human dignity is universal. And so, so are rights often. But not always. Like my 2001 atheist teacher told us, rights are just claims. And they come up in disputes. Because I want something that infringes upon your rights. I want A and you want B. But if I get A, you can't have B. Or maybe not fully. See what I mean? Animals might make claims. But they usually don't know what is good for them. My cat who died in 1996 would love to eat liverwurst all day. And she knew it was making her sick. But she didn't care. Cats and dogs would love to have litters all year round. I guess it's an instinct. Babies and little children want to eat candy all day long even when we explain why it is bad for them. So with those groups, they have more limited rights. Or in some cases, no rights at all. I still tend to think that the rights of victims come before the rights of the guilty. And even the rights of the accused, to a lesser extent. But the criminal justice system is based on things like lawless societies, social control, tyrannical princes. And the fact you really couldn't trust governments back then. Which is why you had the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. But all that is much less true today. Plus during the 1994 OJ Simpson trial, someone brough up on TV. The best thing to do today, if you want to establish if someone did a crime, is simple. Send the case to a laboratory. There must be careful oversight to evidence isn't tampered with. Or lost, for that matter. And then, just to be on the safe side, the head scientist at the lab would announce the results publically. He would say, "We tested the evidence. And according to the law, there must be an at least 90% probability that defendant A did the crime. We think there is. In fact, we found there is actually a 99.4% chance that he did the crime."
