The US should adopt a revised death penalty system

I thank my learned opponent for presenting a well thought out debate. As Con, I will negate the resolution but will not present an alternative plan to my opponent's. Definitions: I have no issue with the definition for death penalty or forensic evidence as described in this first round. Burden of Proof for Crime: My opponent presents an admirable position, but one with numerous consequences. The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, every time. My opponent's plan offers a higher level of proof. He offers a plan requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt with forensic evidence. Forensic evidence described as ballistics, DNA, and fingerprints. The problem is in the need for forensic evidence to be surer the conviction is correct. If such evidence is needed for us to be sure, then forensic evidence is needed as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in all cases. The only feasible standard above a reasonable doubt is beyond all doubt. The Court has addressed the issue of "residual doubt" during the sentencing phase of a bifurcated trial. "This Court's prior decisions fail to recognize a constitutional right to have such doubts considered as a mitigating factor." [1] Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: In the case of "In re Winship", 397 U.S. 358, the Supreme Court put forth the need for a reasonable doubt standard: "The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error." If forensic evidence is needed to obtain this level of certainty, then this is the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. By providing legislation mandating forensic evidence so we can be sure, would move the already high burden on the state to a higher one. The closing statement for the defense in a non death penalty case would go something like this, "No forensic evidence was presented, and as Congress has made clear, such evidence is needed to ensure we do not convict, and subsequently execute, an innocent man. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury will you allow your uncertainty now to convict a man and send him to prison for life without such evidence?" Evidence is used for convictions and proof of aggravated/mitigating circumstances, not levels of punishment. I can find no Constitutional means to require such evidence in one case and not all. Due to the likelihood that all cases would have to use this new level of evidence, the resolution must be negated as mandating forensic evidence to ensure guilt would put an undue burden on the State as some crimes will not leave forensic evidence behind. Rebutting my opponent's reasons (refer to each point in rd 1): 1.Some crimes do shock the conscience, I agree. But forcing the state to follow a higher burden of proof only helps the criminals. In addition, under my opponent's plan the most heinous crimes are not the ones the death penalty will serve. Only heinous crimes with forensic evidence will be subject to this punishment. I could not locate any information on the murdered FBI informant so I cannot determine if forensic evidence was used to prosecute the killer, or if he was found at all. 2.If the death penalty has any positive affect, leveraging killers is it. The problem lies in the fact that under my opponent's plan, the leverage will hinge on forensic evidence, not eye witness, physical, or circumstantial evidence. In addition, leveraging confessions by using a threat of the death penalty is very shaky ground and very dangerous. [2] Using the death penalty as leverage to persuade the abandonment of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial is unconstitutional. [3] 3.My opponent, in this third point, sends us to an op-ed piece that is very misleading. Many of the situations discussed took place oversees, some in Arab countries where the convicts actions were praised more than condemned. In addition, the number of jailhouse murders listed does not tell us whether lifers committed them. A life sentence is far different from life without parole. Life without parole or life without parole in a Supermax prison are possible deterrents to the crimes my opponent lists. [4] 4.The new standard would do nothing but aggravate the appeals process. The appeals process deals not in issues of guilt or innocence per se, as they are given the facts from the district court. The appeals process deals with procedures. All evidence, forensic or not, must be admitted properly, counsel must be effective, the jury selection constitution, and the list goes on. Adding the requirement of forensic evidence places one more area for the appellate court to consider. Also, the need for forensic evidence to gain more surety allows the defense to tie the courts in appeals asking whether evidence was forensic or merely physical. Lastly, if the forensic evidence is admitted in the trial stage for consideration of guilt under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, then the evidence must be readmitted in the later stage under the new and higher burden. I see no indication that the appeals process would be reduced. On the contrary, the new plan allows for more appeals. Concerning reversible error, I must disagree with my opponent. The error does not have to be so egregious as to change the verdict. The error must only be higher than "harmless". The controlling statute provides: 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2111 provides: "On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." The list of errors not deemed harmless are too numerous to list here, but Justice Stewart gives a partial one here. [5] [386 U.S. 18 at 46] reversible error does not have to be one where guilt or innocence is at stake. My opponent's plan will not reduce appeals by offering a higher burden of proof as this is simply not the basis of many appeals. 5. As I am not presenting an alternate plan or a plan with full elimination of the death penalty (which is my position on this matter) I see no need to address the deterrence issue. Conclusion: Although my opponent offers a plan attempting to resolve the issue inherent in any nation with the death penalty, execution of the innocent, the plan does not reduce the appeals process, burdens the state with an impossible standard of guilt, and would only reduce the number of accidental executions at the expense of allowing non death row inmates to enjoy the new burden. The resolution cannot stand under these considerations. 1.Franklin v. Lynaugh 487 U.S. 164 (1988) 2.http://www.cleveland.com... 3.United States v. Jackson 390 U.S. 570 (1968) 4.http://en.wikipedia.org... 5.http://supreme.justia.com...