Fwiw, the increased scrutiny that goes with death penalty cases raises uncomfortable questions about the justice system in general. Would this case be acceptab

Fwiw, the increased scrutiny that goes with death penalty cases raises uncomfortable questions about the justice system in general. Would this case be acceptable if Glossip had only received a life sentence? I'm not sure either way. But it does seem that the justice system should have more accommodation for uncertainty than a complicated appeals process that seems to focus on procedural issues. What form would an uncertainty-conscious justice system take? Economists might suggest that you can account for uncertainty merely by lowering punishment accordingly to account for "risk," (e.g. we will lower punishment by X percent because we're only Y percent sure you are guilty) but that doesn't seem to work here. On the other hand we clearly can't have a justice system that never acts for fear of wrongful incarceration.