[al_again]

The challenge is that the current standard for criminal conviction is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. How do you get a higher standard than that???

For some crimes - I absolutely believe that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment. Unfortunately, the penalty is applied to the most heinous crimes - where the pressure to convict is incredibly high and the 'reasonable doubt' standard is subverted by the 'It's probably him and we can't take a chance of putting this person back on the street'.

I have gone back and forth on this issue numerous times in my life but I keep coming back to the mistaken conviction scenario. This happens much more often than people would like - just look at all the people on death row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

I do appreciate the higher standard argument I just don't see how it could reasonably be done.

[warrior9504]

The how issue is answered in your own arguement. By I higher standard I was not referring to the standard used to determine guilt, but rather after guilt has been determined and the jury debates on the punishment.

I have heard it argued and see a very strong case for not allowing the death penalty in cases where there is only one eye witness. Or perhaps take it even further and state that there must be conclusive DNA evidence in order to assign the death penalty.