Sure you can be 100% sure ... what about cases like the Boston Marathon Bombers who were videoed planting the bombs, and had bomb making parts in their apartment?
This is why I said in this thread that IF it was 100% provable, then the legal system can be basically taken out of the loop and the judicial system review and sentence the guilty party. This would save the legal system millions of $$ on cases like the Boston case where there was no doubt, and it could get "fast process". Then, the method of death should be fast, effective, and painless ... my recommendation has always been the guillotine. And, I recommend that capital punishments be done publicly to any adult wishing to witness it.
I think you can hardly ever be 100% sure, with your particular example even with the video evidence they were misidentified multiple times (consult the wikipedia article for multiple sources). Also and I quote from the wikipedia article 'Despite video footage taken at the scene,
[74] the suspects were not identified by authorities before killing a police officer and hijacking a civilian vehicle.' It is possible that if they had chosen to they might have been able to escape completely and never be identified. What if one of the misidentified suspects had some degree of evidence linking him to the crime? If my DNA was found at a crime scene and i had no alibi and i was on trial facing the death penalty then i don't think i would be able to compose myself enough to put up a good defence.
Just google wrongful executions...I bet they were 100% sure that they were guilty, otherwise they wouldn't have executed them now would they? There are literally so many cases, just check some out and tell me you still support the death penalty. There are too many factors to consider. No point dealing with what ifs, we simply don't have a magical perfect system.
I also question the value of executing criminals. It didn't do any good with those Boston Marathon Bombers did it? They probably thought that they are 'martyrs' now, and they might have inspired others to commit similar acts. It didn't deter them, indeed there is no evidence that the death penalty deters criminals. Maybe truly gruesome and excruciatingly painful executions might deter some people, but even then i have my doubts. Killing people is just barbaric in my opinion. If you are worried about spending money on them to keep them in jail then this can be offset by making them do some sort of work possibly.
Might i ask why you support the death penalty?
"This is why I said in this thread that IF it was 100% provable, then the legal system can be basically taken out of the loop and the judicial system review and sentence the guilty party. This would save the legal system millions of $$ on cases like the Boston case where there was no doubt, and it could get "fast process"
Taking the legal system out of the loop and forgoing the judicial system review is never a good idea and is not the kind of precedent that should be set. You either have due process, or you don't have due process. While i see where you are coming from, no one likes to see public funds wasted on a big bureaucratic mess. how are we meant to decide when to initiate this 'fast process'? A public vote? A vote by jury? Or by judges? By a governor or some kind of politician? It seems like it would be open to abuse, especially if there is a charged media atmosphere and the accused is unpopular. Innocent until proven guilty at the end of the day, and that requires a robust legal system and judicial system review with no exceptions otherwise it innocent until proven guilty falls apart. And that could lead to a slippery slope.
