Fuck your yes or no, you don't tell me my options, I told you that before.
Not everything can be broken down to simple flow charts, in the real world. The real world has too many variables for that.

I don't believe my state is going to execute any innocent people. I said that before, also.
If you have some moral objections to executing criminals, don't do it.

What is wrong with the formulation of Flint's question? Is there something misleading about the question itself? Are there more options than yes or no? If so, what are they?

If I accept his yes/no ultimatum, then I'm accepting his whole flow chart. I don't.

Why not? What premise are you objecting to?

the real world is not that simple. If you want to flow chart it, go ahead and get back to me in a hundred years.

The conclusion.

He doesnt like the conclusion, so he has to reject the whole flow. He cant find where the logic doesn't work, so he starts at the top.

No problem. If I mis-worded aything to give you that impression, at any point, I officially retract it and apologize for the misunderstanding.

Getting it yet, Bruce?

But what premise is oversimplified? Where is the complication that invalidates the question?

I can't give a link but it has been done already and from what I've heard, has been effective as well.

And, to be specific, the conclusion is NOT that you shouldn't support the Death Penalty or the Death Penalty is just plain wrong.
The conclusion is something very specific: the literal conclusion of a simple, logical analysis of known factors. It is not an opinion or a feeling.

Saying the legal system, being a system, can not be perfect means anyone supporting the death penalty supports killing innocent people is bullshit.

Yes is an option, like it or not. No, does not mean there is a possibility.
First, the legal system deals with more than death penalty cases.
Second, attention and care is allocated by the seriousness of the consequences.
Traffic tickets, you pay or go to court, lose and you have one appeal.
Death penalty cases are long and complicated with many mandatory appeals and reviews, designed to check and correct any mistakes along the way. It would take a bunch of mistakes, unchecked and uncorrected, and that's not happening.
I can make wrong turns on the way to work and still get to the right place.
So no, I don't buy because it's not 100% infallible they are going to execute any innocent people. That is not a given.

No must about it. That's only true if I buy your previous premise and I don't.That's not true either.
Why, because I must accept your logic, you carefully constructed to lead to where you want it to go? No, I believe your logic is flawed. Like many things that make sense when you simplify to a few generalities, but don't actually work in the real world because that's not simple.

You can object to the Death penalty on moral grounds, if you wish, but the basis of executing innocents doesn't pass muster.

Yeah but what if you do kill someone who's innocent?

You can't, the court says they are guilty before they are executed.

They've already gone back and DNA-proved a bunch of people that were executed (mostly in Texas) were innocent...

A court finding someone to be guilty is not the same as them being guilty.