Comments Elsewhere

Three clarificatory questions. First:

I have no problem with government coming down hard with its iron fist against those who commit violent crimes against person or property.

Question: What do you think justifies the “iron fist” of government in the specific form of the death penalty for whatever crimes you think merit it? Vengeance for the innocent? Punishment of the guilty? Defense against some kind of threat from the condemned? Deterrance of third parties? Something else? One or more of the above?

Second,

By the time someone stands for trial, odds indicate that they are not just likely to be factually guilty, but almost certainly factually guilty of the crime in which they charged.

Question: How do you know this?

Third,

If, for instance, we were to ensure that those convicted of capital crimes are executed within say 2-years of conviction, then that would pretty much guarantee some wrongful executions, after say the first 1000 or so people were executed. I’m not sure if that would be worth it.

Question: If you’re “not sure” an 0.1% chance of murdering an innocent person “would be worth it,” at what point would the odds be low enough that you’d consider it acceptable losses for whatever benefits you think judicial killing secures?