|
I want to point out that my theoretical underpinning for the D.P. is based on absolute knowledge of the crime. I hold that if you premeditated a killing, you are bound by the social contract, and rightfully subject to the D.P.
However, the current state of the D.P. in US states gives me pause. There is too much error for my tastes. Too many people are sent to the D.P. based on circumstantial evidence, in some cases, one or two testimonies (one of which is by the police) against the accused. Given the current rate of error in D.P. cases, I am adamantly against it as it currently exists. I don't know what the consensus of knowledge should be for the D.P., but I do feel that we should be at least 99.99% positive the guy commited the act. For me, any error in taking life via the D.P. should be at least one in ten thousand, and perhaps even more stringent. We should never, ever, ever take a life in the face of even miniscule uncertainty, for the ability to correct the social wrong is lost forever.
__________________
 
|