• admiralteal
    link
    fedilink
    85 months ago

    Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.

    How about we can execute people, but if they’re later exonerated every single person involved in the execution themselves gets executed automatically. I think that may enforce a high enough standard for me.

    • FfaerieOxide
      link
      fedilink
      15 months ago

      Oh the bar is quite high. No problem then, it will only be a small number of definitely innocent people we murder.

      Irrelevant, it is wrong to execute even guilty people.

    • @jubejube
      link
      English
      -35 months ago

      That made me chuckle. However it seems to go against the premise of your argument. Kill more to prevent the killing of one? I’m afraid there is no good solution. Maybe neuralink will one day allow us to read the memories of those accused for definite convictions.

      • admiralteal
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You have missed my point. If the penalty for an error were death, with no wiggle room whatsoever, there would be no more errors because no one would be willing to risk it. It would end the death penalty.

        And even then I’m not sure “I would literally stake my life on it” is a high enough burden. But it is absolutely insane and unacceptable that anyone is willing to stake someone else’s life on it and not their own.

        • @jubejube
          link
          English
          35 months ago

          I can understand what you are getting at. Ideally, the burden of proof should be absolute. If not then the death penalty should be off the table.

          • FfaerieOxide
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            If not then the death penalty should be off the table.

            Should be off the table for people we absolutely know did it. It is wrong to kill captive people.