Based on what reasoning?

Simple logic. Imperfect system leaves two evil options. 1. Kill innocent person 2. Do not kill IE let go guilty person A truly guilty person commits more crimes, more evils. Therefore it is the greater of the evils to avoid.

You would kill an innocent person? Why not just jail them? The guilty will stay, and the innocent will be set free. It's a win-win.

Your scenario is inherently flawed. The following is based on the understanding you are being accused of a capital offense not a lesser one. Capital offenses are the only ones that carry death penalty sentences. You have two individuals who are found guilty in a court of law. One is truly innocent of the crime the other is truly guilty of the crime. Both receive the death penalty. The reason your scenario cannot work is because in order to jail them both you need to find both guilty in a court of law. However, by not applying the death penalty to one you reverse the sentence and find them not guilty. If you find the truly guilty individual not guilty and set them free, that is the worse evil. Your thinking therefore, is also inherently flawed. However, your thinking is actually the current practice. Notice how few states have the death penalty, the process of appeals prolongs the process almost infinitely, and most inmates die anyway before their sentence. So why not then institute life prison sentences instead since that is the common practice? Over population. The amount of individuals currently in jail and prison far exceed the capacity. There are innumerable problems that arise from prison over population. Those problems then lead to the state validating private prisons and all the problems that arise from those. The simple act of the death penalty would solve this issue. It would also prevent the evil that is setting a guilty individual free. As no system is perfect there will always be issues. The win-win is far from such.

[quote]However, by not applying the death penalty to one you reverse the sentence and find them not guilty. [/quote] Lol wtf You seem to be trying very hard, but this makes absolutely no sense. The proposal is that the death penalty be removed from consideration entirely, replaced by life imprisionment etc. Meaning we would not find people guilty, then... not... because... death penalty reversal? IDK, what you said, again, makes no sense, the point is that we would just stop killing people.

No you don't understand. The death penalty comes in two forms killing them slowly i.e. Jail for life or killing them quickly what you phrase as the status quo death penalty. You end up with the same result either way, a dead inmate. So yes by not instituting the death penalty you are inherently letting them go. What about parole you ask? If there is possibility then there is no death sentence handed down and no death penalty. That situation is not part of this scenario.

[quote]No you don't understand. [/quote] No shit. [quote] The death penalty comes in two forms killing them slowly i.e. Jail for life or killing them quickly what you phrase as the status quo death penalty. You end up with the same result either way, a dead inmate. So yes by not instituting the death penalty you are inherently letting them go. What about parole you ask? If there is possibility then there is no death sentence handed down and no death penalty. That situation is not part of this scenario. [/quote] Lmfao These mental aerobatics are -blam!-ing incredible. If living is the same as dying to you, why haven't you offed yourself yet?