4 ms·
People bring up this argument all the time as if there are no other alternatives (black or white fallacy). How about a simple rule to abide by: if there is any
by apta 7y ago
People bring up this argument all the time as if there are no other alternatives (black or white fallacy). How about a simple rule to abide by: if there is any ounce of doubt as to whether the person committed the crime that puts the death penalty on the table, then it doesn't get upheld. They can get punished in other ways if evidence is strong enough though.
The death penalty would only apply to clear-cut cases. And there have already been a bunch of those (mass shooters, etc.).
- benchaney 7y agoWe already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished. That doesn’t seem to be working at all. There are two reasons we can’t just have a higher standard for the death penalty. The first is that there isn’t a sensible standard stronger than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The second is that even if we impose a higher standard, that standard won’t be enforced correctly. Similar to how proof beyond reasonable doubt isn’t enforced correctly now.
- apta 7y ago> We already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished. This is different from what I wrote. When there's a serious punishment like the death penalty, then any ounce of doubt should waive it. Other lesser punishments can still hold if evidence is strong enough.
- benchaney 7y agoI addressed this in the second half of my comment. There isn’t a sensible standard stricter than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the current standard isn’t enforced properly so I don’t see why adding another one will magically fix the issue.
- apta 7y agoBecause it already works like this in other regions/cultures, and it seems to be doing quite well.
- ainiriand 7y agoThere is already the law that in order to convict someone there can't be any doubts regarding his/her actions. And yet here we are. Judges are humans and make mistakes and the jury is even worse. Remember that what is so clear to you might be not so clear to a judge or to the person next to you.
- apta 7y agoYou still can't equate mass shooting perpetrators with other scenarios for example. In this case, there is no doubt whatsoever who committed the crime.