Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
As usual, an extremely well-thought out, and well-articulated post from you.
Point of clarification on my "cost of doing business" point, I have to note that I see the risk of wrongly convicting as declining, because the burden of proof is increasing. So essentially, I'm asserting that statistics indicating the % of wrongful convictions are now not as applicable going forward, because of the "CSI effect" and the ever-increasing demands of juries that there be scientific forensic evidence present to gain a conviction. Circumstantial evidence is less and less often enough to convict.
And that's the way it should be. If we have the science, we should demand that it be employed.
So in summation on that point, I don't think the risk of wrongly putting someone to death is very great at this point. The errors are reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) by the prevalence of forensic science.
Given the high burden of proof and the lower error rates moving forward, I'm willing to accept the occasional death in the name of obtaining justice for the 99.9% that are rightfully convicted.
|
I hear you on that. It comes down to this: Do we let 999 murderers live the rest of their life in jail to insure we do not kill 1 innocent man?
or Do we kill a 999 guilty murderers with the knowledge that we have likely killed 1 innocent man? I believe we let them rot in jail.
For those where there is
no doubt, I got no problem so long as it is the same regardless of who they are
or who they murdered.