To amplify Paul's point: The legal standard in all criminal trials is "Beyond a reasonable doubt":
> The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
And yet, DNA testing has exonerated many convicted in death-penalty cases where that standard should be applied with the most thought and care.
I don't think there any conclusion other than: The system of trial-by-peers is flawed with a measurable error rate. The judges failed, the juries failed and the prosecution failed; Innocent people have been put to death, while the real culprits have walked free.
Putting people to death based on such a flawed system is unconscionable.
> The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
And yet, DNA testing has exonerated many convicted in death-penalty cases where that standard should be applied with the most thought and care.
I don't think there any conclusion other than: The system of trial-by-peers is flawed with a measurable error rate. The judges failed, the juries failed and the prosecution failed; Innocent people have been put to death, while the real culprits have walked free.
Putting people to death based on such a flawed system is unconscionable.