4 ms·

> there was plenty of strong evidence that he did it, such as possessing all the victim's stuff and pawning her laptop This should not be sufficient to justify

> there was plenty of strong evidence that he did it, such as possessing all the victim's stuff and pawning her laptop This should not be sufficient to justify the death penalty. Whether or not this guy did it, using such an incredibly weak standard will and almost certainly has killed innocent people. > This is the Innocence Project's standard beat. They attempt to free a lot of convicts…whose conviction was based on very strong evidence “Very strong” evidence should never be enough to sentence someone to death. The evidence should be irrefutable. Anything less is unacceptable and inexcusable.

pie_flavor 2y ago
[flagged]
- haswell 2y ago
  > If [the accusations] were refutable, he would have refuted it at trial. This is not what irrefutable means. There are many reasons something might be refuted poorly at trial even if the accused never did anything wrong at all. This is why appeals happen. The standard of evidence I’m talking about is whether or not it is possible in principle to call the evidence into question, not whether or not the defense team did a good job. Put another way, there must be a preponderance of evidence such that it is not possible even in principle to question it, i.e. the crime was committed in a room full of witnesses, or the crime was captured on camera, etc. The evidence must be so air tight that there is no possible way to question it. That standard was not met in this case. > You are welcome to morally oppose the death penalty in principle, but with the set of moral opinions that produced the Missouri legal code, the death penalty was not misapplied in this case The opinions that produced the Missouri legal code that allowed this execution are immoral/unethical independent of one’s position on the death penalty itself. One does not have to oppose the penalty entirely to demand proper standards of evidence. Personally, I don’t think the death penalty should exist. But if it must exist, it must be held to an appropriate standard. That this is even slightly controversial is something I have a difficult time understanding.

pie_flavor 2y ago

[flagged]

haswell 2y ago
> If [the accusations] were refutable, he would have refuted it at trial. This is not what irrefutable means. There are many reasons something might be refuted poorly at trial even if the accused never did anything wrong at all. This is why appeals happen. The standard of evidence I’m talking about is whether or not it is possible in principle to call the evidence into question, not whether or not the defense team did a good job. Put another way, there must be a preponderance of evidence such that it is not possible even in principle to question it, i.e. the crime was committed in a room full of witnesses, or the crime was captured on camera, etc. The evidence must be so air tight that there is no possible way to question it. That standard was not met in this case. > You are welcome to morally oppose the death penalty in principle, but with the set of moral opinions that produced the Missouri legal code, the death penalty was not misapplied in this case The opinions that produced the Missouri legal code that allowed this execution are immoral/unethical independent of one’s position on the death penalty itself. One does not have to oppose the penalty entirely to demand proper standards of evidence. Personally, I don’t think the death penalty should exist. But if it must exist, it must be held to an appropriate standard. That this is even slightly controversial is something I have a difficult time understanding.