The argument against capital punishment is because you can never trust the government to do the right thing. If you distrust the government and always expect the government to be manipulated by other people and/or are incompetent (and I've seen your posts here and I know you hold that view), then you cannot trust them to be competent in always convicting the right person for capital punishment.

Blackstone's ratio was an arbitrary number. He probably used 10 because it does a better job hitting home how incompetent and malicious the government is.

For me, I am only for corporal punishment if it's VERY VERY VERY obvious. Like this post, or like a serial killer who has so much evidence stacking up against them that it's obvious, or a pedophile who has a long trail of victims that can attest to their traumas and who haven't been coached to say things a certain way.

I agree that it shouldn't be completely removed, but the standards for it should be extremely high, like a standard higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is used for criminal court cases. I wouldn't know what to call it, but I do think that option should be there.

The argument against capital punishment is because you can never trust the government to do the right thing. If you distrust the government and always expect the government to be manipulated by other people and/or are incompetent, then you cannot trust them to be competent in convicting the right people for capital punishment.

Blackstone's ratio was an arbitrary number. He probably used 10 because it does a better job hitting home how incompetent and malicious the government is.