Before responding to you directly, I'll say this: Killing is always wrong and therefore the death penalty is always wrong.
> I firmly believe that some people have to pay the ultimate price for their deeds, but I insist that these people should have so much evidence pointing them to having done the act that there is no possible way that they could be innocent.
I would say that condition is 100% impossible to meet, and would present that as an argument against the death penalty.
> also sets a deterrent for future criminals wishing to do something similar.
This does not exist. At least, it has not been reliably shown that this exists. The intensity of the punishment for a crime has not been shown to correlate with the number of criminals committing the crime. There have been studies that show both results (that increasing punishment decreases future crime, and that it doesn't).
You cannot base real ideas on the assumption that the death penalty will deter potential future murders. There's no reason to believe that's the case.
> I would say that condition is 100% impossible to meet, and would present that as an argument against the death penalty.
Without getting into the pro/con discussion, that doesn't sound right to me. I was under the impression that the vast majority of criminal cases were complete walk-overs: You have weapon, forensics, motive, opportunity, confession and what not all aligning perfectly.
By a stroke of tautology, we never hear about them because they are boring.
Or at the other end of the spectrum: Where is the wiggle-room for less than 100% certain guilt in the Anders Behring Breivik case in Norway?
I upvoted you for your reply. I appreciate that you didn't downvote me for something you read that you don't agree with.
I would say that condition is 100% impossible to meet, and would present that as an argument against the death penalty.
Exactly my point. So it'd be so rare that you'd never hear of it happening.
Regardless of people's moral/religious/practical stance on capital punishment, it is never a black and white issue. If anything, there exists only a grey area. I can always find someone who vehemently disagrees with capital punishment, but then makes exceptions to the rule in the most heinous of violations (killing of family, children, cultures).
My Google skillz are failing me but there is a famous quote from a judge ruling on obscenity laws. It went something like: "I know obscenity when I see it". For me, this is the same issue with capital punishment. The worst part is that you can't write laws based on that type of subjective judgement.
> I firmly believe that some people have to pay the ultimate price for their deeds, but I insist that these people should have so much evidence pointing them to having done the act that there is no possible way that they could be innocent.
I would say that condition is 100% impossible to meet, and would present that as an argument against the death penalty.
> also sets a deterrent for future criminals wishing to do something similar.
This does not exist. At least, it has not been reliably shown that this exists. The intensity of the punishment for a crime has not been shown to correlate with the number of criminals committing the crime. There have been studies that show both results (that increasing punishment decreases future crime, and that it doesn't).
You cannot base real ideas on the assumption that the death penalty will deter potential future murders. There's no reason to believe that's the case.