• admiralteal
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

    • jubejubeEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        9 months ago
        edit-2
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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.

        • jubejubeEnglish
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.