[wildzzz]

Why retain it as a potential punishment if the burden of proof to obtain it is impossible? There's always a chance the evidence is objectively incomplete and even if they confess, there's always a chance they were coerced. Putting an innocent person in prison for life is awful enough but at least there is time for them to appeal or for contrary evidence to surface some day. Condemning that innocent person to death puts a countdown on proving their innocence. Maybe someone else confesses to the crime or some other exculpatory evidence is uncovered years after the execution. What does the state do at this point? They can't reanimate the dead. How do you make family members whole when you've legally murdered their parent/spouse/child? Money doesn't replace a person.

You also could end up with situations where a particular governor is indifferent to the plight of someone professing their innocence due to their own bias where next year, a new governor comes in that is more sympathetic that would have stayed the execution or pardoned that person. The world is just too complex to be 100% certain that someone must die for their alleged crime.

The law needs to be applied fairly to everyone. You can't simply give some people the death penalty and others life in prison for the same crime just because a case seems more concrete (or more likely, they can afford a better lawyer that creates stronger doubt).

And you know what's worse than death? Sitting in a little box for the rest of your life separated from friends and family while the world passes you by. People commit suicide for less.

[magicalhippo]

Here in Norway we don't have the death penalty. We did however have a guy go around on an island shooting and killing 69 people[1], most of them kids, until the police came and arrested him. He confessed and there was absolutely zero chance it was not him, as there were hundreds of kids on the island who saw him.

He got the same sentence as a guy who's just been found not guilty for sexually assaulting and killing two young girls, after 21 years in jail[2]. The police found blood from one guy, but arrested his friend as well. After the first guy confessed, the police suggested he couldn't possibly have done it alone, and only then did he implicate his friend. His friend has always claimed innocence, and got the longer sentence due to it. There was never any direct evidence of his friends involvement. The friend recently got his case re-tried and found not guilty.

If the death penalty is on the table, I think it's pretty clear which of these two cases it should apply to, and which it should not.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baneheia_murders

[fakedang]

I was just going through the second article. Wow, it looks like a man's entire life was overturned because of some specially corrupt persons in the police and forensics who decided to keep hiding evidence - but for what purpose?

Specifically one Bente Mevåg and one overenthusiastic but untrained interrogator.

> When Tore H. Pettersen in his closing statement argued that the DNA evidence was caused by contamination, members of the jury reportedly leaned backwards in their chairs, smiled, and crossed their arms comfortably.

Hence why we should get rid of flawed jury-driven trials.

[magicalhippo]

> but for what purpose

It was a quite special case. Two young girls, in a very popular hiking area on the outskirts of one of the larger cities here in Norway. Don't think there had been such a case in "modern times" here. As such, there was a massive pressure to find and convict the perpetrators.

And, since there weren't many such cases here in Norway, the police was quite inexperienced in handling them well it seems. Nice that we don't have more of this happening, but sad that it leads to such poor investigation, handling of evidence and interrogations etc.

It feels like a trope saying the police just wanted to convict someone, but I really feel like that was the case here and in other high-profile cases in the same era.

That said, I also do think the public and media had a role. Without the massive public pressure in such cases to find and convict the perpetrators yesterday, perhaps the police had made other choices...

[fakedang]

Part of the reason for America's variance in trial decisions is related to the jury system, which imo is highly flawed. You're essentially putting the lives of the innocent and the guilty in the hands of a set of people who barely have any training in unbiased analysis. And more importantly, with the jury system, you do not have a way of establishing precedence.

As proof of this, the most successful legal system in the US, the Delaware Chancery Court, is a non-jury trial court.

> Why retain it as a potential punishment if the burden of proof to obtain it is impossible?

India has the death penalty, but they use it for the most egregious of crimes (brutal rape-murders like the one in 2012, terrorists, gangland bosses, etc.).

[wildzzz]

Just because a crime is especially egregious doesn't mean that the accused is more guilty than any other crime. I fail to see why a rape-murder should give the accused less time to prove their innocence than just a regular murder or rape. The punishment should fit the crime obviously, a murder is more egregious than petty theft but how does society benefit from killing potentially innocent people other than revenge that politicians can boast about in their campaigns?

[fakedang]

Oh, I don't mean cases that still hang in the air, but those which are closed-and-shut cases. The 2012 gangrape-murder in Delhi, India, was such a scenario - they found DNA evidence, evidence of gruesome rape with metal rods, a brutal murder and disposal of the body, and eye witness testimony of the boyfriend, and the entire nation in uproar. The death penalty was the only suitable verdict then - in fact, delaying it was a major reason the then-government lost power.

Then again, in India, we also had a rape in 2017, where the same thing happened with a 6 yr old Muslim child, but because the perps were lackeys of the ruling party at the center and the victim Muslim, the case was mostly forgotten within a few weeks. Doesn't help that the media was in the pockets of the ruling party too (still is).

There is an obvious merit to using the death penalty - after all, why should taxpayer money be used to fund the imprisonment of those who have already proven that they're the worst of society?