well. if you really want to dig into this we can. lets say a child is molested/raped by Jon Doe. she tells her parents they file a report. police magically have enough evidence for warrant so they go to Mr. Doe's house. they knock, hear screams and bust open the door. Mr. Doe has another girl tied up on bed with a camera that has been recording his misdeeds, and his fat arse is trying to squeeze out a window to get away.

granted this will probably only ever happen in Law & Order: SVU, but... well there you have it. if you REALLY want to know how someone could be irrefutably guilty, i suppose that should suffice.

Yeah, but where do you draw the line? This whole line of thought is ****ing retarded, because this Judge Dredd **** would never fly anyway. Let's face it... there's a reason we have the 4th Amendment. It's because crazy *******s think it's ok to shoot someone if they commit a particular crime that they really don't like.

again. im not talking about judge dread crazy shooting someone on sight throwing 14th amendment in the shredder crap... unless that was directed at someone else then, nevermind

but as MacFarlane already correctly pointed out, child rape/molestation doesnt qualify for death penalty anyways.

I think, just as a practical matter, it would be pretty difficult to get juries to apply an "absolute certainty" standard correctly. That's more or less what we're talking about, right?

Sweet, it would only cost a corrupt sheriff around $1 million to fast-track a political enemy to a lethal injection. Good idea.

I would think any 'Guilty' plea would be enough to fast-track a death penalty trial, but then I guess you are going to have that 1:1000000 situation where someone lies to protect someone else or pleads guilty do to coercion.

yeah... you could take a hit out on someone for a lot less than a million. unless we are going back to the evil genius in a bowler hat thing. twirling his handlebar mustache... always twirling.

It's CGI. What costs a million today will cost $10k in five years. You're also missing the point.

There is no such thing as "absolute certainty." Not in witness testimony, not in forensics, not in physics, not in mathematics, and not in philosophy. This is a fact of our world. We institutionally recognize this problem, which is why we have restrictions on evidence, on criminal investigations, on sentencing, and why we have juries. If you are going to seriously propose an alternative to any of these things, you're going to have to answer some very challenging moral and epistemological questions.

ok. we keep coming back to this. did i at some point say we should circumvent trial by jury? or throw out the justice system? or changing how evidence is submitted or investigations are conducted without realizing it? I was fairly certain i really only suggested expediting the appeals process. However if the argument is that that the death penalty should not be allowed because you can never be certain "enough" then appeals or lack thereof are a moot point in this conversation. and what the hell is epistemological!?!?! im seriously looking this up right now. wow... oh sweet baby jesus.

Anyways! so i concede you do have a point about if there can EVER be evidence concrete enough to produce "absolute certainty".