Originally posted by Hecate100
... While I do believe that there are crimes whose only punishment can be death (as in the case of serial killers), it concerns me that so many cases
have been overturned in recent years due to DNA evidence.
I have always been a proponent of the death penalty, but after watching a documentary on Barry Sheck's Innocent Project, I think sweeping reform is
If a defendant is convicted of first degree murder(s), IMO the only time the death penalty should be instituted is if there is DNA evidence or a
"smoking gun." Such as in the cases of Gary Ridgeway, Ted Bundy, or Westerfield.
Will this allow some to escape the death penalty who are completely guilty...probably, but I hate the thought of anyone being put to death who is not
Look at the Scott Peterson case - Let's assume for a minute that he's guilty. There is absolutely no physical evidence, his conviction will rely
solely on circumstantial or connect the dots evidence. If assuming that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I would still have trouble giving him
the death penalty without physical evidence and eliminating ALL doubt.