Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get why you would say something like that in astonishment. By why would you ever send that out over a medium that'll leave a paper trail? Thank goodness that criminals aren't very smart. Their idiocy is doing society a huge favor.
> Thank goodness that criminals aren't very smart No, the criminals are extremely smart. Its just that these were amateurs who didnt know that in Anglosaxon common law, you have to avoid being honest about anything and even deny any wrongdoing even if you get caught the act of murdering someone. Then you can exercise plausible deniability, claim incompetence or mental incapacity and you can negotiate your sentence. A…
Ignoring the "Anglosaxon" buzzword here, none of this is unique conceptually to US law, or foreign conceptually to anyone who's told a lie when younger. It's instinctual for many when they know they've done something wrong. Trying to paint human nature as a unique problem that US law faces, or promotes, is itself dishonest.
> claim incompetence or mental incapacity
Neither of these get you "off the hook"; that's a misconception.
> That's how you end up with people who are total experts in their field testifying in courts that they "didnt know" that something they did would cause so much harm to something or somebody or the society.
It can be either dishonesty, or lack of omniscience by the expert in question. Unless you're a mind reader, you have no idea. This is why testimony is evaluated along with other aspects of a case, and not alone.
> There wont be any trail of their wrongdoing, and when there is, there will always be plausible deniability in that trail...
Plausible deniability does not shield you from all liability.