“just gave you an example of where the guilt to murder(s) could be determined without doubt, and you said " I support the concept of an eye for an eye, but as humans CANNOT determine the offender beyond all doubt, " – No you didn’t what you gave was an example where you thought you could determine guilt without all doubt. I don’t accept your example, so what you demonstrated was an example where you thought you could determine guilt beyond absolute doubt. No problem with that, you can think what you like. However what you cannot do is insist that I MUST think that your example is sound and therefore the resultant ‘proof’; for it is a proof for you, not for me! Remember I live in the REAL world with humans and REAL process. Some more hints - the criminal act is not alone in determining guilt, the mind is there too, so is the process and other laws covering insanity that interfere with estimation of guilt or sentence, then of course there are the human witnesses who are human estimators with error. I can believe in and even prove that a conical shaped object possessing mass placed in a gravitational field, its point resting on a surface that follows a contour of equipotential can be arranged such that there is no rotational component. But I cannot stand a simple pencil on a table. Have you thought why reasonable doubt was used? If a hypothetical all doubt replaced reasonable doubt, the defense Champaign buckets would be prepared before every case and the death penalty, as it should, would rapidly become extinct, returning society to a civil humane existence. For we are humans after all and therefore can have differnt views, estimates and thoughts!

Count Cash wrote in #15
“And since you support the concept of an eye for an eye, you must then support the death penalty.” – NO (hint read and UNDERSTAND earlier post – happy to help out with any misunderstandings, but spoon feeding is not my style). //////
Oh, I know very well what you said, it just isn't consistent. Perhaps english is not your first language. I know very well your style, obfuscation and seeking to blame others. I just gave you an example of where the guilt to murder(s) could be determined without doubt, and you said " I support the concept of an eye for an eye, but as humans cannot determine the offender beyond all doubt, ". But, it seems I must spoon feed to you what you said.QED

If you kill an average person you won't get the death penalty, you might even get a reward.  Especially if  the person is being reported on, in government approved  articles.