(January 20, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(January 20, 2016 at 1:54 pm)robvalue Wrote: You could as a *cough* "compromise" only execute where there is absolutely no doubt, and the evidence is too overwhelming for there to possibly have been a mistake. (Or at least, an incredibly small chance.) If I was going to bring it in, I'd do it just for murder, and just in that case. But I'm not saying I would.
And how would you determine if the evidence in any particular case is "overwhelming"? Families would push for this standard in cases that don't meet it. Perpetrators would push back. All this would do is add another layer of appeals to an already lengthy and expensive process.
How about requiring DNA evidence in the form of bodily fluids, since that is what gets people unquestionably off the hook in most cases. Would it be possible to differentiate in older cases?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.