There are many occasions where the possibility of something should bring you to hesitate about your action. For example, shooting into a bush. We should only point weapons towards things that we are willing to destroy. Of course, this principle isn’t absolute either. Supposing you point your gun at the ground. There may be a man stuck in a subterranean area that you may have shot. So, we mitigate the risk of our actions to the best of our ability. The mere possibility isn’t sufficient for you to change your actions. This reasoning should have been used in the Covid epidemic, but such is the past and present (depending on when you are reading this).

The same reasoning is used when discussing the death penalty. People often maintain the possibility of innocence is sufficient to stop any execution. While it should bring us to stop and think it hardly should bring us to end the death penalty. We should execute those convicted, but exonerate those where the evidence doesn’t warrant a conviction.

The interesting aspect is whether this can be turned around. If the man is guilty there is the possibility of another victim. So, given the objector’s principle, they should and shouldn’t execute the individual because of the possibility he will escape to kill again, kill another prisoner, or prison workers. So, who’s possibility matters?