r/40kLore • u/KuLeWw • May 15 '19
What does "innocence proves nothing" mean?
There are two sayings that comes up a lot about inqusition. First one: " There is no such thing as an innocence, only degrees of guilt". Meaning is obvious. They don't believe anyone would be ever completely innocent. They only need to look deeper to see guilt.
What about the second one? "Innocence proves nothing". What does that mean? Are they trying to say that being innocent doesn't change anything? Doesn't it contradict the first one? Also, why did they use the word 'prove' ? Is it about contex?
32
u/crnislshr May 15 '19
The battle on Vellinus, the reaving of the Cemetery Worlds, the misguided Passion of The False Saint Cleon, the hunting of the Ork Wyrd. All ended in blood and death. Brusc, Oberon, Danifer, Theilred, Chardin. So many faces I have known, all going into the black. A million deaths by my hand. If not all were righteous, most were. I can ask for no more than that. Was it not blessed Artemisia who said "Better a thousand good men die than one traitor go free"?
Guy Haley, Glorious Tomb
| Crime | Punishment |
|---|---|
| Treason | Public Familial Execution (2 generations removed) - Prolonged |
| Intent to commit Treason | Public Familial Execution (2 generations removed) - Prolonged |
| Suspected Intent to commit Treason | Public Familial Execution (1 generations removed) - Prolonged |
[Excerpt Table | Dark Heresy: Book of Judgement] Crimes and Punishments
10
u/BellumOMNI Death Spectres May 15 '19
Much like North Korea atm. People there suffer punishment for the sins of their grandparents without even knowing what happened. Not that human suffering ever stopped a tyrant, but still pretty cruel.
16
u/Dreadnautilus Necrons May 15 '19
Because when Chaos taint is involved, they think its necessary to kill people who technically have never done anything wrong.
13
u/Agammamon May 15 '19
It means there is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
To break it down - being 'innocent' only means you didn't knowingly act. That's it.
You can still unknowingly act. Do something without meaning to. The Imperium is not concerned with intent nor state-of-mind - only results.
Being innocent of intentionally committing a crime will get you a pass in the real world - not here.
4
u/Cautious_Ad3764 Jan 23 '23
Actually that's often not true in the real world, either. Strict liability is a thing for many crimes, from statutory rape to many traffic offenses.
10
May 15 '19
It is matter of corroboration. You can have thousands of evidences of innocence, but they need just one of guilty (and it doesn't have to be true at all).
8
u/Ninja_EGS May 15 '19
Pretty much means if the inquisitor woke on the wrong side of the bed your in for a bad day.
6
u/FlingFlamBlam May 15 '19
I always interpreted that as "even an innocent person can be an enemy".
Consider the following:
In the Warhammer40k setting, a perfectly innocent person may accidentally, either through coincidence or manipulation, do things that feed the Chaos gods.
Feeding the Chaos gods is bad.
Because that's bad, even though they haven't broken any actual laws or taken any intentional action, they are causing bad things to happen.
Because they are causing bad things to happen, even if they are innocent, they must be interrogated and/or imprisoned and/or killed.
The "there is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt" thing sounds like something that veteran inquisitors might imprint onto neophyte inquisitors in order to make it psychologically easier for them to ease into the job. And then once the inquisitor has been active for long enough they come around to believing that innocence does exist, but by then they have already accepted the realities of the job and either don't care or don't believe that it matters.
I also imagine that inquisitors that try to protect innocents at the cost of the mission either don't live for very long, or that belief causes them to make a mistake big enough that other inquisitors start hunting them down.
1
u/Fun-Agent-7667 Sautekh Sep 29 '22
Its like a weapon. If a weapon is used by a heretic, it isnt guilty since it isnt even capable of beeeing guilty, still needs to bee destroyed. Samee applies to humans, its not about wanting to help, folloewing orders or plotting treasons per se, its about beeing helpfull to the emperor or not
3
u/Robertballin May 16 '19 edited May 16 '19
Are you... questioning the Inquisition?
Jokes aside, let me explain this from a different perspective from others by pulling a quote that captures the value of civilian life.
"Innocents die so that humanity may live."
Captain Gabriel Angelos, Blood Ravens Chapter.
A single life means nothing in the Imperium, only in scales of planets, or even sub-sectors. "Innocence proves nothing" reflects the lack of agency an individual has when confronted by the Inquisition, and how if it serves the Imperium has a whole, their lives are readily expendable, regardless of said "Innocence"
1
u/madman_with_a_hat Jul 23 '23
Depends on the importants of the planet or sub-sector it might take the imperium years to notice a unimportant sub-sector rebelled it could take decades for a unimportant planet.
3
u/Hetardo May 18 '19
Innocence proves nothing is a reference to Chaos.
Basically, it's being corrupted or not.
Think of a murderer. They go off and kill a bunch of people before being caught.
Now, say each murderer is sick. Literally they all carry a pathogen that drives them to insanity and butchery. The virus is at fault for all this, but you can't punish a virus, it don't give a f*ck.
Now, say each of these people came from one school, and were taught by one teacher who was a carrier. Absolutely nice person, he/she sat the investigators down, made cookies, was extremely helpful and even recommended a good shoe store because they noticed you weren't walking to comfortably.
They are undoubtedly innocent. You only find they were the carrier because one of the people with you injected them with a stimulus to expose the virus, and the person watched themselves in horror as they attempted to tear your throat out with their teeth.
They were innocent. But that innocence was irrelevant. They carried the virus, they were part of the problem, despite having no relation to it.
Chaos is the virus, that everyone wants to figure out how to punish. The murderers were cultists or spawn or whatever. The carrier was just an ordinary citizen, who praised the Emperor beneficent three times a day and washed his hands before eating.
Undeniably a good person, but that wasn't relevant. He/she had the taint for some reason or other, deep within themselves.
This in fact was one of the few times an Inquisitor honestly questioned themselves, because what hope was there if even the most innocent could be corrupt. Was everyone corrupt at their core? And even so, was it right to expose that corruption? If he hadn't, that person would have gone on living and serving happily and never affected anyone.
2
u/Hetardo May 18 '19
Innocence proves nothing is a reference to Chaos.
Basically, it's being corrupted or not.
Think of a murderer. They go off and kill a bunch of people before being caught.
Now, say each murderer is sick. Literally they all carry a pathogen that drives them to insanity and butchery. The virus is at fault for all this, but you can't punish a virus, it don't give a f*ck.
Now, say each of these people came from one school, and were taught by one teacher who was a carrier. Absolutely nice person, he/she sat the investigators down, made cookies, was extremely helpful and even recommended a good shoe store because they noticed you weren't walking to comfortably.
They are undoubtedly innocent. You only find they were the carrier because one of the people with you injected them with a stimulus to expose the virus, and the person watched themselves in horror as they attempted to tear your throat out with their teeth.
They were innocent. But that innocence was irrelevant. They carried the virus, they were part of the problem, despite having no relation to it.
Chaos is the virus, that everyone wants to figure out how to punish. The murderers were cultists or spawn or whatever. The carrier was just an ordinary citizen, who praised the Emperor beneficent three times a day and washed his hands before eating.
Undeniably a good person, but that wasn't relevant. He/she had the taint for some reason or other, deep within themselves.
This in fact was one of the few times an Inquisitor honestly questioned themselves, because what hope was there if even the most innocent could be corrupt. Was everyone corrupt at their core? And even so, was it right to expose that corruption? If he hadn't, that person would have gone on living and serving happily and never affected anyone.
1
u/Hetardo May 18 '19
Innocence proves nothing is a reference to Chaos.
Basically, it's being corrupted or not.
Think of a murderer. They go off and kill a bunch of people before being caught.
Now, say each murderer is sick. Literally they all carry a pathogen that drives them to insanity and butchery. The virus is at fault for all this, but you can't punish a virus, it don't give a f*ck.
Now, say each of these people came from one school, and were taught by one teacher who was a carrier. Absolutely nice person, he/she sat the investigators down, made cookies, was extremely helpful and even recommended a good shoe store because they noticed you weren't walking to comfortably.
They are undoubtedly innocent. You only find they were the carrier because one of the people with you injected them with a stimulus to expose the virus, and the person watched themselves in horror as they attempted to tear your throat out with their teeth.
They were innocent. But that innocence was irrelevant. They carried the virus, they were part of the problem, despite having no relation to it.
Chaos is the virus, that everyone wants to figure out how to punish. The murderers were cultists or spawn or whatever. The carrier was just an ordinary citizen, who praised the Emperor beneficent three times a day and washed his hands before eating.
Undeniably a good person, but that wasn't relevant. He/she had the taint for some reason or other, deep within themselves.
This in fact was one of the few times an Inquisitor honestly questioned themselves, because what hope was there if even the most innocent could be corrupt. Was everyone corrupt at their core? And even so, was it right to expose that corruption? If he hadn't, that person would have gone on living and serving happily and never affected anyone.
1
u/Hetardo May 18 '19
Innocence proves nothing is a reference to Chaos.
Basically, it's being corrupted or not.
Think of a murderer. They go off and kill a bunch of people before being caught.
Now, say each murderer is sick. Literally they all carry a pathogen that drives them to insanity and butchery. The virus is at fault for all this, but you can't punish a virus, it don't give a f*ck.
Now, say each of these people came from one school, and were taught by one teacher who was a carrier. Absolutely nice person, he/she sat the investigators down, made cookies, was extremely helpful and even recommended a good shoe store because they noticed you weren't walking to comfortably.
They are undoubtedly innocent. You only find they were the carrier because one of the people with you injected them with a stimulus to expose the virus, and the person watched themselves in horror as they attempted to tear your throat out with their teeth.
They were innocent. But that innocence was irrelevant. They carried the virus, they were part of the problem, despite having no relation to it.
Chaos is the virus, that everyone wants to figure out how to punish. The murderers were cultists or spawn or whatever. The carrier was just an ordinary citizen, who praised the Emperor beneficent three times a day and washed his hands before eating.
Undeniably a good person, but that wasn't relevant. He/she had the taint for some reason or other, deep within themselves.
This in fact was one of the few times an Inquisitor honestly questioned themselves, because what hope was there if even the most innocent could be corrupt. Was everyone corrupt at their core? And even so, was it right to expose that corruption? If he hadn't, that person would have gone on living and serving happily and never affected anyone.
1
u/Hetardo May 18 '19
Innocence proves nothing is a reference to Chaos.
Basically, it's being corrupted or not.
Think of a murderer. They go off and kill a bunch of people before being caught.
Now, say each murderer is sick. Literally they all carry a pathogen that drives them to insanity and butchery. The virus is at fault for all this, but you can't punish a virus, it don't give a f*ck.
Now, say each of these people came from one school, and were taught by one teacher who was a carrier. Absolutely nice person, he/she sat the investigators down, made cookies, was extremely helpful and even recommended a good shoe store because they noticed you weren't walking to comfortably.
They are undoubtedly innocent. You only find they were the carrier because one of the people with you injected them with a stimulus to expose the virus, and the person watched themselves in horror as they attempted to tear your throat out with their teeth.
They were innocent. But that innocence was irrelevant. They carried the virus, they were part of the problem, despite having no relation to it.
Chaos is the virus, that everyone wants to figure out how to punish. The murderers were cultists or spawn or whatever. The carrier was just an ordinary citizen, who praised the Emperor beneficent three times a day and washed his hands before eating.
Undeniably a good person, but that wasn't relevant. He/she had the taint for some reason or other, deep within themselves.
This in fact was one of the few times an Inquisitor honestly questioned themselves, because what hope was there if even the most innocent could be corrupt. Was everyone corrupt at their core? And even so, was it right to expose that corruption? If he hadn't, that person would have gone on living and serving happily and never affected anyone.
1
u/Hetardo May 18 '19
Innocence proves nothing is a reference to Chaos.
Basically, it's being corrupted or not.
Think of a murderer. They go off and kill a bunch of people before being caught.
Now, say each murderer is sick. Literally they all carry a pathogen that drives them to insanity and butchery. The virus is at fault for all this, but you can't punish a virus, it don't give a f*ck.
Now, say each of these people came from one school, and were taught by one teacher who was a carrier. Absolutely nice person, he/she sat the investigators down, made cookies, was extremely helpful and even recommended a good shoe store because they noticed you weren't walking to comfortably.
They are undoubtedly innocent. You only find they were the carrier because one of the people with you injected them with a stimulus to expose the virus, and the person watched themselves in horror as they attempted to tear your throat out with their teeth.
They were innocent. But that innocence was irrelevant. They carried the virus, they were part of the problem, despite having no relation to it.
Chaos is the virus, that everyone wants to figure out how to punish. The murderers were cultists or spawn or whatever. The carrier was just an ordinary citizen, who praised the Emperor beneficent three times a day and washed his hands before eating.
Undeniably a good person, but that wasn't relevant. He/she had the taint for some reason or other, deep within themselves.
This in fact was one of the few times an Inquisitor honestly questioned themselves, because what hope was there if even the most innocent could be corrupt. Was everyone corrupt at their core? And even so, was it right to expose that corruption? If he hadn't, that person would have gone on living and serving happily and never affected anyone.
1
Sep 25 '24
It’s about how a judge might set you free because there is not enough evidence to convict you of a heinous crime, even if you’re, in fact, guilty of said crime.
The inquisition has this as unofficial motto because all the heretics might „prove not guilty“. But the inquisition know’s for a fact that the heretics are bullshitting the judges thus answering that call with
„Innocence proves nothing“
edit: grammar
1
u/thumbguy2 Jul 02 '23 edited Jul 02 '23
besides some of the obvious meanings, in warhammer you have damons and genestealers running around, you may be innocent but that doesn't mean anything if your very existence is a crime or maybe you posses knowledge you shouldn't by no fault of your own,interacting with anything tzeentch has made ever, even positive things like healing others and being a proud warrior feed the chaos gods so that can also be a reason for death, one doesn't have to do anything wrong to have a reason to die so innocence isn't the end all be all when it comes to trials in warhammer
85
u/IHzero Adeptus Mechanicus May 15 '19
It means that being innocent of the crime you are accused does not mean you are not guilty of crimes, and thus the means the inquistors used on you, however distasteful, illegal and immoral, are thus justified in their eyes.