I believe in extreme circumstances, society should reserve the right to "not turn the other cheek". Nothing is black and white. The government is not completely incompetent, and not all cases have reasonable doubt. But cases like this, no way. Define some clear-cut parameters and apply it to every state uniformly.
We literally pay these people to put their lives on the line for us, but it seems to have become OK for them to "shoot first and ask questions later". They have lighter restrictions on the use of force than we had in a war zone in the Army.
Perhaps it's time that we DO say that they're too incompetent to protect our lives. Perhaps it's time to vote for an actual change while we still have time.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
The logical next step is, "so the government should not be in the business of killing people."
Life in prison? Sure, though I'm personally not sure depriving someone of their freedom for the rest of their natural life isn't also unacceptably cruel.
But as a species, we're a long way from selecting government officials who don't want to kill. These freaks crave power.
And Glossip had the chance to take life if he confessed. He chose death. Just goes to show that cruelty is subjective.
Incompetence that leads to my wrongful conviction and death is probably just as likely as the incompetence that would lead to my death when I'm supposed to be protected. It's a hell of a lot less likely than the death of those whom I'm not-exactly being protected from, such as the countless victims of "collateral damage".
I don't ask this to be snarky. I'd like for the death penalty to be abolished. But I do want to know if that's your true reason for rejecting the death penalty.[1] If it's not, perhaps there's a different, stronger reason for your view.