[sweetliberty]

"they'll just take someone's word that she would prefer to die?"

Yeah, especially when that little detail wasn't even "remembered" until 8 years after the fact by the so-called witness. No court of law would order the death penalty on the uncorroborated testimony of only one witness, certainly not of one who stood to profit from his testimony being heeded. Why should this be any different?

[ellery]

Exactly -- you would think in a case that, if they get it wrong, they've just killed someone against their will, the burden of proof would be higher, not lower!