Avi,
The definition of certainly in regard to this bill is what people believe about something. Its about how they would rate their conclusion. And people reach a conclusion on which they say “I am certain of this”. People talk like this, “i am certain of this and don’t have a shadow of a doubt”
As to the case of the fire the only reason that it was felony murder was because of a technicality, that since he was trespassing it is legally arson, which is a felony. A person in his own home, or in the public domain that is just as negligent in the fire breaking out is not considered a murderer because he did not commit a felony. In addition if the resulting fire was a misdemeanor there would be no murder charge. This is not based on logic, its more of a penalty.
You citation of starting a fire with his own hands is for civil liability. But for purposes of murder the gemora in sanhedrin 78b says that he must have intention to kill. There is no intent to kill in felony murder.
As for the Rambam he starts with saying anyone who murders people etc. if he means without clear proof then how to we know that he murders people. He goes on to say that or if he did without warning and “even” with a single witness. If he means in the beginning that we are not even sure that he did it that would be a much bigger chidush than a single witness (as I noted earlier the Ohr Sameach has a problem with how can we take a life based only on 1 witness. He would certainly be troubled more by how to we take a life of a possibly innocent man)
I think that he means ???? as in clear seeing. That means that they are certain that it was him, for example they saw through ?????? which means that they can confirm that it was him based on certain identifying features that they saw, but they did not have a clear look at his face which would not be a valid sighting in hichlcohs eidus. And this is what ??? ????? ????? means (reb akiva eiger says that eidus requires an identification based on seeing the person’s face.) This is the same rambam that says using 80% evidence amounts to inevitably killing an innocent man, and there is no reason that this shouldn’t apply to any sort of execution. Ask a big talimd chochom what he things the rambam means and see what he holds, because its beyond contemplation that the rambam is allowing the killing of a man who man be innocent.
The argument for beyond a reasonable doubt is that innocent men will in fact be punished but this is the price of law and order, because if we demand certainty then almost all criminals will get away. The argument is not that if its beyond a reasonable doubt then it is certain that he is guilty.
This is a very valid point if there is to be law and order, but it is not necessary to execute people who may not be guilty so as to have law and order.
In a nutshell your opinion is that its okay to execute people who may in fact be innocent for the sake of law and order, even though life without parole is punishment enough as far as people not getting away with their crimes.
However the Torah in does not permit the killing of innocent men, and the Rambam calls this killing a ??? ?????. (you keep saying that the halachs is in regard to a bais din. However there is abslotely no logic in limiting this reasoning to a bais din, and that in other types of justice killing a ??? ?????, by killing a person who may be innocent is okay.
I think that I explained my position as clearly as I can, so I will leave it at this. However I want to leave you with one final thought to contemplate. If you got into a situation where it was beyond a reasonable doubt that you murdered somebody and you know that you didn’t do it. When they strap you down to execute you would you feel that an injustice is being done, or would you tell yourself that you accept your fate because since they decided that occasionally killing an innocent man is necessary, then justice is in fact being done in executing you for something that you didn’t do. I don’t think that you would. So why are you advocating that others be subjected to this fate.