> How low of a rate are you willing to accept,

See my other comment

> and how do you plan on getting there?

By restricting death penalty not just to the type of crime, but the type of crime and the type of evidence. I think death penalty should be reserved for repeat offenders of egregious crimes where there is overwhelming strong evidence.

The standard is already beyond a shadow of a doubt and requires the prosecution, original judge, jury, several rounds of appeals overseen by more judges. After which the governor or president can weigh in.

Humans are fallible and therefore incapable of creating an infallible justice system.

Allowing any death penalty means murdering some number of innocent people to "get" a greater number of bad people who you already have locked up.

So answer the question. How many innocent people are sufficiently low collateral damage and stop pretending we can only execute bad people.

The rate is sufficiently low enough if it is lower than the collateral damage caused by not executing exceptionally bad people.

The number of people for whom this is true is probably so low its not worth bending our laws, ethics, and souls into knots to try to get these people.

"> How low of a rate are you willing to accept,

"See my other comment"

Where you never answered.

1/10? 1/100? 1/1000?

Keep in mind that those statistics are very indirect, particularly since once an execution is carried out, no one has any incentive or interest in reexamining the case.

I can't name a hard figure, because it's a relative figure. The rate is sufficiently low enough if it is lower than the rate of innocent deaths caused by not executing exceptionally bad people.