a revision to the system that, for capital murder cases, in order to execute someone, the burden of proof must not be just beyond a reasonable doubt but overwhelming. I think the default sentence for a murder conviction under the current standards should be life imprisonment. If the person's found guilty, no matter how heinous the crime, that is the highest sentence they can be awarded.

However, if a prosecutor feels that the evidence is massive, they can add an additional stage of the trial to prove that higher burden and the death penalty is back on the table. Nothing in that secondary stage can be used to reduce the original non-capital verdict. If found guilty beyond all doubt, the appeal process is considerably shortened. Only procedural arguments may be brought up. If the person deserves death it is swift.

Please remember that the whole ideal of allowing a chance for a mistake is bolstered by a belief in an afterlife. Even if you get it wrong, God can atone for the mistake. I'm not going to argue about religion. You all know my views on that but often I'm presented with the argument "What if you're wrong?". Here's a time where there should be no double standard. If the religious are wrong about an afterlife, death is final and a mistake in executing a wrongly convicted person is unrepairable.

Obviously, religious views of an afterlife have no place in our governmental policy. Our constitutional checks and balances and protections for our citizens were crafted by men not Zeus or Jesus.

It's a very trusting person who gives their government the right to take lives. I once heard a very conservative acquaintance tell me that they were firmly against the death penalty because once that right is given to our leaders it can be distorted and abused later against the innocent.

Art