True, but that’s why we have “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Even with forensics, we can’t be 100% sure; but that’s true about everything.
Look at epistemology. The Epistemological Idealists say that the truth is absolutely unknowable; since our senses themselves are potentially entirely false, we can’t actually know anything. The chair we see has no relation to an actual, existing chair; it’s just an idea. That’s the logical conclusion if we say “in order to assert something is true, we must have absolute 100% proof of it.”
On the other hand, the Relational Realists state that we do, in fact, perceive reality - insofar as it relates to us. There is such a thing as a chair, and I’m viewing it as it relates to me: through vision, reflections of light, etc. Even though there’s no proof that the Relational Realists are correct, that’s what our natural inclination to believe is and that’s the assumption we make as we go about living in this world.
If we were to state “because we cannot know with 100% certainty that Jimmy is a murderer, we cannot state he is and arrest him,” then we would never arrest anyone. Even if I saw him kill Johnny, not everyone saw him; and if we’re going the full Idealist route, even direct observation wouldn’t be enough.
In this imperfect world, we must settle for reasonable doubt. While it may allow for people to be framed or wrongly accused, the truth doesn’t change. If they didn’t commit murder, at least they can rest in the peace of knowing they never did it; but if they did commit murder, being convicted (or not) won’t change the fact that they did, in fact, make that choice.
Then they aren’t fully good anymore. Do note the logical consequence of this: that we all, in fact, have done evil. Does that make us all evil? Yes, in part. That’s the point. We should never settle for evil of any kind.
When you make an act, you’re also making a choice of value. If I choose to kill, I value the intended end (my pleasure, perhaps; or my finances; or the satisfaction of my hatred; whatever it may be) over their life.
That can be corrected, of course; that’s the point! We want them to change their values to become rightly ordered again! It’s better to value each human life appropriately, and not to value pleasure above any of them.
A single act doesn’t define you forever, but it does define what you valued in that moment.
That’s precisely why we must strive, with all passion and strength, to get them to change those values back. And to do that, they must realize the horrible evil of murder. And to imprint that evil on the minds of every living being, we must always prosecute murder. We must ensure the order of justice is served, so that the revolting evil of murder is never questioned.
That’s true. I’m not saying Umineko should’ve changed to prosecuting the guilty, mainly because everyone’s already dead.
It’s true that she wouldn’t be able to find out the truth; with that, I see no problem ending Umineko the way it did.
My only real objection to all of this would be the reasoning behind it. Instead of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” it’s more like “it’s better to assume they’re innocent, so as to keep good memories of them.”
I suppose I can summarize my two issues with the presentation of Umineko here:
-
A denial of ability to know objective truth, which would lead to epistemological idealism;
-
I’m not fully sure how to put this one; maybe a denial of the truth about people’s acts relating to who they are? It’s kind of abstract and hard to define right now; maybe I’ll get a better idea of my exact objection later. In any case, it’s linked to #1, I think.
Even if Ryukishi didn’t intend for these two messages to come across, the text certainly lent itself to these interpretations very well.