Thanks for your reply.

We agree on the core principle: we shouldn't execute people when there's doubt. The disagreement I have is about whether the system can ever be certain enough.

I'd argue that even cases that seem airtight at trial have fallen apart later (new evidence, recanted testimony, exposed misconduct etc etc...) If we acknowledge that human judgment is fallible, then a system with no "undo" means we're gambling with lives we can never give back.

Maybe the real question isn't whether we could find enough people we're sure about but whether any government should have the power to make that kind of irreversible mistake.

To be clear: I understand we're fundamentally on different ends of the table on this topic (and that's okay). I wanted to share my thoughts on it with you, not tell you you're wrong.

I appreciate you hearing me out!