The difference: If/when their innocence is proven, one of them gets to enjoy their life again.In both instances their entire life was taken away from them because they were not-guilty.
A harsher form of punishment that is not needed and irreversible, which is why we go in a circle back to it being abolished. Which one is worse is 100% irrelevant since the issue is that one of them should not exist.And if you argue that living a life in prison is better than being executed then you've just outlined why people advocate for a death penalty, since you are admitting it's a harsher form of punishment (not saying you did advocate, just extrapolating on a hypothetical counter-argument).
This is not about state's rights at all. This is about constitutionality (against cruel and unusual punishment), justice and morally correct. States' rights are not above that (see slavery, civil rights act, women's right to vote, interracial marriages, etc.).But to me this boils down to States' rights and forcing your opinion upon another person. I just think if States vote to allow the Death Penalty then my proposal set forth in a previous post should be the guide to ensure there are no wrongly executed individuals.
And all this is why I'm so done with debating this issue. I laid out my reasons and you can mince this down to all these miniscule reasons for having it, but its just bending things around the fact that its inhumane in imperfect and that's all that matters.