Person on camera was a black male, 5’2" to 6’6" wearing a dark hoodie. The suspect certainly fits the description. There was a written manifesto, but the suspect says he didn’t write it. He says he only signed the confession after being tortured by the police for hours.
Your proposal is exactly the system that exists now, and it’s unjust.
“Beyond any doubt” - Parkland high school shooting. Multiple people identified the shooter. Caught with weapons. Admits to crime.
When a person is apprehended in the act in front of multiple witnesses - that’s beyond any doubt. In any case, the standard of proof should be higher than “reasonable doubt” if the penalty is death. There are too many cases where that standard has failed and innocent people were convicted.
You’re describing “beyond reasonable doubt”. There still exist “unreasonable” doubts, such as, there’s a conspiracy against this suspect which the entire police force, the judge and the jury are part of. Or “aliens did it”, or anything.
You might think I’m being pedantic here, but being pedantic about language is a lawyer’s bread and butter.
The problem is that “reasonable” is open to interpretation, and that’s the actual reason innocent people have been put to death…
There’s no way, weird as it may sound, to definitively prove anything except mathematical expressions, it’s a fact of life. That’s why gravity is just a theory. It only takes one piece of evidence going the other way and it’s proved wrong, just like in cases where the judge, jury and everyone else were so certain of guilt that they convicted someone to death, only to find out later they should have acquitted. It’s not their fault, they were acting on the best information available to them. But it’s impossible to be sure.
That, for me, is enough to render the death penalty unworkable. It would be nice to be able to delete the worst people in society, but it’s a fantasy. It’s just not possible to do it without sacrificing innocent people on the way.
Person on camera was a black male, 5’2" to 6’6" wearing a dark hoodie. The suspect certainly fits the description. There was a written manifesto, but the suspect says he didn’t write it. He says he only signed the confession after being tortured by the police for hours.
Your proposal is exactly the system that exists now, and it’s unjust.
“Beyond any doubt” - Parkland high school shooting. Multiple people identified the shooter. Caught with weapons. Admits to crime.
When a person is apprehended in the act in front of multiple witnesses - that’s beyond any doubt. In any case, the standard of proof should be higher than “reasonable doubt” if the penalty is death. There are too many cases where that standard has failed and innocent people were convicted.
You’re describing “beyond reasonable doubt”. There still exist “unreasonable” doubts, such as, there’s a conspiracy against this suspect which the entire police force, the judge and the jury are part of. Or “aliens did it”, or anything.
You might think I’m being pedantic here, but being pedantic about language is a lawyer’s bread and butter. The problem is that “reasonable” is open to interpretation, and that’s the actual reason innocent people have been put to death…
There’s no way, weird as it may sound, to definitively prove anything except mathematical expressions, it’s a fact of life. That’s why gravity is just a theory. It only takes one piece of evidence going the other way and it’s proved wrong, just like in cases where the judge, jury and everyone else were so certain of guilt that they convicted someone to death, only to find out later they should have acquitted. It’s not their fault, they were acting on the best information available to them. But it’s impossible to be sure.
That, for me, is enough to render the death penalty unworkable. It would be nice to be able to delete the worst people in society, but it’s a fantasy. It’s just not possible to do it without sacrificing innocent people on the way.
Actually a really good point on the language of it.