I’m agreeing with your conclusion but not with your reasoning.
You reason that since it looks like he might be innocent, he shouldn’t have been executed. Extrapolating from this yields that you also believe that if you felt he was definitely guilty, he should have been executed.
I’m saying that because this uncertainty exists at all as a concept the death penalty should be abolished. Its impossible to prove someone’s guilt 100% in these cases, therefore the death penalty is immoral. Not just in this case but in every case.
I am just arguing about his case within the local law. Not about the sanity of the local within moral boundaries. So we two are having two different arguments here.
Maybe you should have read my whole statement before writing this wall of text?
they’re agreeing with you and taking it further, i’m pretty sure
I’m agreeing with your conclusion but not with your reasoning.
You reason that since it looks like he might be innocent, he shouldn’t have been executed. Extrapolating from this yields that you also believe that if you felt he was definitely guilty, he should have been executed.
I’m saying that because this uncertainty exists at all as a concept the death penalty should be abolished. Its impossible to prove someone’s guilt 100% in these cases, therefore the death penalty is immoral. Not just in this case but in every case.
I am just arguing about his case within the local law. Not about the sanity of the local within moral boundaries. So we two are having two different arguments here.