I want to preface this by stating that I have no ethical, moral, or religious objections to the death penalty per se.
I do have considerable reservations about its use.
I think it is of note that most of the discussion in this thread relates to the appropriateness of the death penalty as regards the heinous nature of the crime, i.e. the death of an innocent child. It naturally leads to the topic of punishment as retribution vs. punishment as dissuasion, vs. incarceration to protect society, and is an excellent one to pursue.
But that isn't what I want to address.
I believe that it is better for some guilty to go unpunished, or at least less punished than for the innocent to be punished. This is the core reasoning behind the concept of "reasonable doubt".
In the case of the death penalty this idea needs to be taken even further. Reasonable doubt does not suffice. The problem is that once executed the judgement cannot be taken back. There is no "Whoopsy, sorry about that!"
I feel that the death penalty requires ... no, demands absolute, 100% certainty. Not 'beyond reasonable doubt". The problem here is the difficulty of determining that certainty. No amount of circumstantial evidence can provide it. No number of "eyewitnesses" can provide it. Even confessions have been shown, often, to be in error.
I ask anyone who supports the death penalty to answer one simple question.
How many innocent people is it okay for our legal system to put to death?
If your personal answer is a non-zero one then please follow with the percentage of erroneous executions that you do believe to be acceptable. Is one innocent death out of a thousand guilty all right? How about one out of a hundred?
We can pursue discussion on that basis. Perhaps it is O/T here. Perhaps not.
If your answer is zero then please consider in that light opinions you may have posted here.
I would enjoy conversation on the topic of achieving that 100% certainty. Again, perhaps O/T, perhaps not.