That is impossible unless you let everyone off. Even the criminal justice system doesn't attempt to acheive that. Fortunately I don't think thats what he's saying.

His understanding of why the criminal justice system is overly cautious is simplistic at best. Yes the governments authority can be abused and that is the criminal justice system has such high standards.... Specifically though the criminal justice system has the "authority" to deprive us of human rights unlike the civil justice system(or any sporting organization I know of). We place a higher value on these rights then we do justice therefore we allow some of those guilty to go free in order to reasonably protect them. We still convict and punish inocent people and always will. That is why the standard is beyond reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt.

Yes in a very general sense his opinions are shared by a great many people(myself included) <b> when it comes to criminal justice</b> Even tort reform fanatics haven't tried to get civil justice system to work within those restraints. Why? Because that would sacrifice justice for nothing. Neither lofty ideals nor inalieable rights. It instead tries to maximise justice as I described previously.

I didn't discount what he said. He switched from using the term justice to faireness himself. I merely accepted that change since I didn't want to have a drawn out argument over the nature or justice with someone who lacks a sophisticated view of the concept.