Several years ago, I heard someone say that they believed you should have eyewitnesses in order to convict someone of murder. This would mean that if a killer managed to do the crime without witnesses (or who killed the witnesses), then he couldn't be convicted. Personally, I don't think that's a reasonable standard for conviction.

I do believe that there needs to be much more use of DNA evidence, when it is available. In many ways, it's more reliable than even eyewitnesses. Just this morning, I read a new article about a man who spent 7 years on death row only to be exonerated by DNA evidence. This is happening all too often, which suggests our current way of conducting trials needs work. It seems far too many people are being cleared by DNA evidence after spending years in prison on wrongful convictions. Admittedly, DNA evidence doesn't exist for every crime, but we can do better. Maybe DNA or other solid forensic evidence should be the minimum acceptable standard for a death penalty.

Personally, I have a suspicion that the death penalty will effectively be abolished in most places within 10-20 years for cost reasons if nothing else. It costs millions to convict someone, sentence them to death, and then go through the appeals process.