And what I keep telling you is that your argument helps not a whit with the death penalty nor wrongful convictions.
If you were arguing with the people who want to limit appeals and destroy evidence after conviction, I'm with you.
If you think that "well,if we convict an innocent and condemn him to death we haven't gotten the guilty" will sway people from supporting the death penalty I'm saying that no, anybody who's previously been okay with killing innocent people so as not to let guilty people go free will amend their position only so much as to allow that maybe it's worth being as sure as possible, but when push comes to shove, kill person A and if he later turns out to not have been the guilty, go find the guilty person and kill nhim too.
For people who consider wrongful convictions to be an acceptable collateral damage, it'll remain an acceptable collateral damage.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-17 06:50 pm (UTC)If you were arguing with the people who want to limit appeals and destroy evidence after conviction, I'm with you.
If you think that "well,if we convict an innocent and condemn him to death we haven't gotten the guilty" will sway people from supporting the death penalty I'm saying that no, anybody who's previously been okay with killing innocent people so as not to let guilty people go free will amend their position only so much as to allow that maybe it's worth being as sure as possible, but when push comes to shove, kill person A and if he later turns out to not have been the guilty, go find the guilty person and kill nhim too.
For people who consider wrongful convictions to be an acceptable collateral damage, it'll remain an acceptable collateral damage.