Isn't the logic something like this?
If the prisoner is ignorant of his crime, he is proving ignorance of the law and/or proof of trying to deceive the court; therefore no matter the prisoner's guilt re: the initial crime, the prisoner is guilty of being ignorant of the law and/or trying to deceive the court.
A state, or other actor of s…
If the prisoner is ignorant of his crime, he is proving ignorance of the law and/or proof of trying to deceive the court; therefore no matter the prisoner's guilt re: the initial crime, the prisoner is guilty of being ignorant of the law and/or trying to deceive the court.
A state, or other actor of similar presence utilising such logic cannot be fought or defeated with logic or reason or truth, only by force.
Isn't the logic something like this?
If the prisoner is ignorant of his crime, he is proving ignorance of the law and/or proof of trying to deceive the court; therefore no matter the prisoner's guilt re: the initial crime, the prisoner is guilty of being ignorant of the law and/or trying to deceive the court.
A state, or other actor of similar presence utilising such logic cannot be fought or defeated with logic or reason or truth, only by force.