I agree that there is high probability of 1-2 (more even?) in every 100 hanged being innocent. I also agree that this doesn't make any meaningful difference to

I agree that there is high probability of 1-2 (more even?) in every 100 hanged being innocent. I also agree that this doesn't make any meaningful difference to the argument for capital punishment. When the argument against it is simply "we're not good enough at judging when to use it", then you aren't rejecting the concept - simply the execution of it[1]. Which means that some bright spark comes up with the most absurd set of safeguards, appeals systems etc to try and overcome the objection - and the end result is death row. Does any punishment truly act as a deterrent? Should we instead be upset by the underlying societal issues? What proportion of crime is truly a free choice? Once the damage is done to the perpetrator can you ever truly rehabilitate everyone. Does everyone even deserve a change at rehabilitation? Are the costs of perpetual incarceration acceptable? I'm not even close to having strong answers for all of my vague questions. I do know that I disagree with the articles key point though - killing a person is wrong as an absolute unquestionable moral position. It doesn't stand up in my opinion. [1]I'm not even that sorry. I simply couldn't resist.