Diuretic
Permanently confused
What would it take, for you, to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all? Your personal eyewitness of the deed?
I don't know, to be perfectly frank. But I do know this, there are so many variables at work from the criminal act to the eventual decision by the jury that, looking at the system in totality, there is no way I would ever be convinced that the death penalty is a good idea. All it takes is sloppy police work, a lazy prosecutor, an inexperienced defence lawyer, a couple of influential jurors, a judge not paying attention to the evidence and bingo, someone who is innocent is convicted. I just don't trust the criminal justice system that much that I would be comfortable with the death penalty.
Dayum.... You really are cynical, aren't you? BTW, jury tampering is illegal, a prosecutor isn't likely to be lazy if he/she is the one working every so hard to convince the jury of guilt, and a judge doesn't weigh the evidence (the jury does) although he/she must pay attention to whether or not its admissible (which is generally determined outside the court room). Now an inexperience defense lawyer might be a point, but in a capital case? Not bloody likely....
Not jury tampering, all it takes is one or two strong personalities in the jury room and there can be aquittal or conviction against the facts. A prosecutor can be lazy, ambitious, inexperienced, corrupt, incapable, ignore exculpatory evidence to get a conviction and so on. The judge directs the jury on the law within the context of the facts so needs to be alert all the time and no half asleep, asleep, disinterested and so on. Put all those together and even a very good defence lawyer is up against it on behalf of the client.
My point is that the system is not infallible. If it were then I'd be happy to concede that the death penalty is not likely to be used against an innocent person. The fact is that it is fallible and innocent people have been executed. That's why I won't support the death penalty.