You would suggest then that there is no difference between the death penalty and a $100 speeding ticket? Or a 6 month sentence for theft? I think you might want to rethink that.
Speeding and theft aren't capitol crimes. As you point out with these examples the penalty is largely expected to fit the crime. Is it less horrific for an innocent person to be fined $100 than an innocent person being put to death? Well, yes of course! Don't let your horror at the idea of an innocent person being put to death (indeed, horrific) determine for you whether the penalty is just and effective. If it is horrible for innocent people to be put to death (it is!) then work to make sure that doesn't happen. Improve the system.
Another point: If the death penalty is, in fact, a deterrent and you don't use it...how many innocent people will die at the hands of murderers who weren't deterred? You could argue that we could use my argument to eliminate using this as an argument
for the death penalty. Believe it or not, I'd agree with that. We should focus solely on what is just and effective as a penalty. Likewise if we're doing that, we must focus solely on a system that is fair and effective, convicting as many guilty people as possible while exonerating as many of the innocent as possible.
I don't see how anything less than this is acceptable in a criminal justice system.
