4 ms·
We 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
by benchaney 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. 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.