The US should adopt a revised death penalty system

I did not argue an alternate plan such as one with no death penalty because we have tons of those on this site and Pro took the time to come up with a well thought out plan so I only wanted to focus on that one, and I want to test the legal argument also, as some states are looking at this situation. . http://www.chicagotribune.com... I am conceding the justice value of the death penalty and that it deters crime for this debate only. I do not agree with either outside of this debate. 1. "We are debating a "should" resolution. Consequently, if the resolution is otherwise found sound and is affirmed, and present law does not allow implementation of the resolution, then the law should be changed. " 2. "It is in any case reasonable to provide an additional standard of proof for applying the death penalty. " 3. "Con poses a false dichotomy" [referencing beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond all doubt] I placed all three of these quotes together so I can address them in unison. I agree Pro's plan would require some new constitutional interpretation, no need for an amendment I don't think, and I agree it is reasonable. The reasonableness requirement is met with my opponent's plan. This requirement is very important as the state is precluded from enforcing unreasonable standards. Honestly, the best case illustrating this principle is the Dover Trial. The Court spends a considerable amount of time on the matter. Under Pro's plan a statute is written allowing for a higher burden of proof for the penalty phase of a capital trial. My opponent accurately shows that forensic evidence provides more surety of guilt, but does not provide guilt beyond all doubt (I am not sure any proof could meet this burden). Here is the formula: 1. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that gives the fact finder "a subjective state of near certitude". Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 315 2. My opponent's law codifies forensic evidence as necessary to enact the death penalty. 3. The law is reasonable because forensic evidence provides a surer conclusion. 4. Because the law now codifies this new principle for the sake of more surety; 5. Then the forensic evidence requirement becomes necessary for proof beyond a reasonable doubt every time. Whatever is needed to meet this standard becomes "beyond a reasonable doubt". The changes necessary for this law would include making non capital cases subject to a lower burden than "beyond a reasonable doubt" and such a lower burden for criminal action is impermissible. Now, my opponent and voters should note that the lower burden of proof, that would exist under my opponent's plan, is exactly the one we have now for all cases; how can I now say it is impermissible when it has upheld constitutional scrutiny since Winship? Simple, no law and no amendment makes forensic evidence necessary for proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", my opponent's plan does. My opponent's plan makes forensic evidence necessary, through codification, to get to "a subjective state of near certitude" which is a standard our courts have held since Winship for any guilty verdict. Due to the fact the law my opponent presents makes "beyond a reasonable doubt" a burden necessitated by forensic evidence then all cases concerning criminal liability must hinge on it. The higher burden would provide an undue hardship on the State to acquire a constitutionally permissible guilty verdict for all crimes. For this reason we should reject Pro's plan as the changes necessary to enact it would void the "bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary' principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of our criminal law'". In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 I am not presenting a false dichotomy as the controlling definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" places it directly below "beyond all doubt". Any attempt to add surety expands the definition. Other points: 1. "Con argues that if forensic evidence is required for the death penalty then defense attorneys will argue that forensic evidence is required for conviction. However, defense attorneys now make the argument that forensic evidence ought to be required for conviction. " Agreed! The big difference under Pro's plan is the defense attorney would have a very solid constitutional argument available, now they do not. I agree the CSI effect is real and that juries do enact what they think is a higher standard of guilt when dealing with a capital crime, but I must add that whatever those doubts are, if they deal with guilt, and the doubts are reasonable, then the defendant should not have been found guilty at all. We should not reward behavior which bases sentencing on the level of doubt, and not on the culpability of the defendant and the heinousness of the crime. 2. "Even if such a bias does not already exist, it is inevitable that forensics will be recognized as more reliable, because they are. " Then we should expect such a standard in all cases if this standard is codified. 3. "Pro claims that using the death penalty as part of a plea bargain is unconstitutional. " I did not say this. I said using the death penalty in plea bargains is shaky ground, but I cited a case that states very clearly that denying one a jury trial by threatening the death penalty is unconstitutional. 4. "However, many cases are appealed solely to avoid imposition of the death penalty. " I must disagree with my opponent here. The Innocence Project tackles cases that do not involve the death penalty. [1] [2] [3] [4] These are simply the first four or so in alphabetical order. They will remain as strong as ever. And the ACLU does not care if the person is guilty or not nor whether the sentence is life or death. 5. "Technology has outdated the notion that there is no level of certainty between ‘beyond a reasonable doubt' and ‘beyond all doubt'". Technology does not dictate these terms, our courts do, and if forensics is codified to ensure certainty, then all defendants will enjoy the burden. 6. My opponent did not address the fact that using the term "forensic" in defining this evidence, he creates a separate basis for appeal. He may have intended to include it in his argument for overall appeals under the false foundation that these appeals are only made to avoid death. I have shown that to be false, so the new basis of appeal stands. Greater justice will not prevail under my opponent's plan as the bedrock of our criminal system will be diminished, as stated above, due to forcing the state to meet an undue burden, and allowing forensic evidence to be the staple burden in all criminal trials. 1. . http://www.innocenceproject.org... 2. . http://www.innocenceproject.org... 3. . http://www.innocenceproject.org... 4. . http://www.innocenceproject.org...