I'm a little unclear about what you and I are disagreeing about.
I /think/ what I'm disagreeing with you on is whether it's an argument against the death penalty that every innocent person executed means that probably someone else who did commit the crime goes free.
I don't see that as any different from someone rotting in jail for a decade.
If you're talking about denying appeals and destroying evidence after conviction I might be with you, but again, no different from someone being jailed.
In fact, there are more appeals allowed on death row than if someone's got life in prison; one could argue that one is /more/ likely to later ifnd the real killer if the innoccent man is on death row.
And if someone considers a few innocents in the death toll to be acceptable collateral damage then that person would likely be perfectly fine with finding out later that someone now dead wasn't the killer, so long as the real killer is later found.
no subject
I /think/ what I'm disagreeing with you on is whether it's an argument against the death penalty that every innocent person executed means that probably someone else who did commit the crime goes free.
I don't see that as any different from someone rotting in jail for a decade.
If you're talking about denying appeals and destroying evidence after conviction I might be with you, but again, no different from someone being jailed.
In fact, there are more appeals allowed on death row than if someone's got life in prison; one could argue that one is /more/ likely to later ifnd the real killer if the innoccent man is on death row.
And if someone considers a few innocents in the death toll to be acceptable collateral damage then that person would likely be perfectly fine with finding out later that someone now dead wasn't the killer, so long as the real killer is later found.