Legal and moral philosopher, Fritz Allhoff has supported the essence of Blackstone's ratio. He submits that punishing the innocent "violates notions of desert". He further defends this position by appealing to the liability principle, which is grounded in just war theory. He suggests that "the guilty are liable to punishment, whereas the innocent are not" making the punishment of the innocent manifestly unjust, therefore the innocent should face no prospect of being punished; and Blackstone’s Ratio is a means to this end. He has, however, criticised the fact that Blackstone's ratio offers a static burden of proof; wherein prosecuting someone facing trial for a $10 fine, would require the same standard of evidence as prosecuting someone facing the death penalty - under Blackstone's ratio at least. He comments; "If the tolerance for wrongful convictions varied based on the punishment, it would more accurately track our — or at least my — moral intuitions". Suggesting that, "the greater the consequence of a guilty verdict, the greater the standard of proof required".