Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

Yes, but you don't address the question of wrongful conviction. In the case of Gacy or Bundy I suppose it's quite definite that they're guilty, but in other cases of murder there have been errors ... so what are we to do? We could give juries the choice of three verdicts ... "Not Guilty", "Guilty", and "Really Really Definitely Guilty, This Isn't One Of Those Dumb Mistakes You're Going To Read About In The Papers Ten Years From Now".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"If any"? There are cases where people have been convicted for murder and their supposed victims have turned up alive and well. (Examples here, and here, here.)As for "proven beyond doubt", that's not how we do it. You don't have to prove beyond doubt that someone is innocent, or just think how many crimes you could be convicted of. Can we execute you because no-one can prove beyond doubt that you're not a murderer? It is true that DNA evidence has exonerated many innocent people. But the moral of that is not that the Angel Of DNA will always turn up in time to save the innocent. There are plenty of cases where DNA is not a factor in the evidence. And we should expect a similar proportion of wrongful convictions in the cases where it isn't a factor as in the cases where it has been retrospectively applied. Also, we'll live in cities on the moon, hooray! But until that great day comes, perhaps we should shape our policy around the circumstances obtaining in the present. (1) Why?(2) Some people don't need to be put to death for what they haven't done. The statement that the guilty should be put to death, even if true, does not entirely abrogate the (more easily justifiable) statement that the innocent shouldn't.If you execute the guilty, you must occasionally execute the innocent. Is it worth the price, and if so, why? What exactly do we get out of executing the guilty that compensates us for executing the innocent?Does it also compensate them? If you were sitting in the condemned cell yourself, contemplating your own innocence, would you think: "Despite its occasional flaws, this system is still superior to one which would let me live"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you'd clicked on the first link, you'd know better: It's in the first paragraph, just after his name. Apart from, y'know, the ones where there is. Because, by magic, wrongful convictions don't happen when there's the death penalty. It makes juries infallible ... oh, except for the mistakes they make, which you can apparently wish out of existence. I can't see that we get that much out of killing the guilty that makes it worth it.Same with Seal Team 6 --- if their mission was purely vengeance, rather than defending us against a threat, and if there's risk of them killing the innocent, then why do it? How much fun is vengeance, really?

Well, in the first place, he was guilty. Are we going to have to go through your watered-down 9/11 Truther thing again?In the second place, he wasn't assassinated. He was killed resisting arrest. That sometimes happens in the justice system you're suddenly so keen on. If he'd surrendered, he'd now be on trial in New York, with an attorney and everything.

"Also, you know that guy the State of Texas is executing tonight. Definitely guilty. Why, he was found guilty by twelve upstanding citizens whose prolonged experience of watching American Gladiators makes them the ideal people to determine guilt or innocence. Go back to sleep."

What, and disturb your slumber? Never. The government is always right when it kills people --- with the exception of Osama Bin Laden.

I posted it while suspended upside down in a tank of live piranhas.

To be precise: it can exonerate him, it just can't resurrect him.