The state doesn't determine such: unanimous juries of our citizen peers do. The question of someone's criminal guilt or innocence isn't decided by administrative fiat, it's applied consistently with majoritarian principles and standards of community conduct.
The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.
No, of course not. Firstly, a racially segregated jury is hardly valid in that it isn't constituted "of one's peers." Secondly, a retributive theory of justice demands punishments that are proportionate to the crime. "An eye for an eye" means minor offenses receive the most minor punishments, while more severe crimes get harsher ones. Theories of punishment based on criminal deterrence or rehabilitation cannot actually answer this question of
how severe sentences should be. In an ideal system, legislatures set bounds for what the prescribed criminal punishments ought to be and judges and juries dole out specific sentences considering any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Collectivism is morally bankrupt: Example 21,293,047,255
You gave a meme response so you'll get a meme retort: I guess it was also "morally bankrupt" for the Allies to invade Nazi Germany knowing that a certain amount of innocent civilian death would happen? Some ends justify collateral damage; maintaining the notion that the state proportionately acts to restore moral wrongs is pretty high on that list.
