• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Committed no crimes” is an objective statement about reality. The state has killed people who committed no crimes, and the state had a right to execute all of them. Both of those statements are true, so their combined form, “the state has a right to execute people who have committed no crimes,” is also true. Personally, I would prefer if we made that statement not true anymore.

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Lol perhaps in your fucked MAGA fantasy world the state is empowered to kill people who are not guilty of crimes. Back in reality a jury of their peers has to agree without a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty and should be executed. Can justice be miscarried, yes. But no system is perfect.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        A jury of your peers does not determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, they determine whether the evidence against you is sufficient to find you guilty. A jury of Claude Jones’ peers found him guilty based on evidence that was later shown to be faulty. That guilty verdict gave the state the right to execute him. He was innocent. They had the right to execute an innocent man. They could do the same to you.