The US should adopt a revised death penalty system

Pro has agreed that for the purposes of this debate that the death penalty provides increased justice both for individual heinous crimes and for the system in general. He agrees that forensic evidence provides a higher standard of proof above a reasonable doubt but short of "beyond all doubt." If it is true that it increases the certainty of convictions, then it follows that we will have fewer innocent people executed. Death penalty opponents rightly cite erroneous executions as an argument against the system, but even under the present system false executions are rare. I have not seen any charges of a false execution having happened since one in the mid-90s. I believe that everyone would agree that having fewer false executions is a benefit. So what are Pro's objections to the resolution? He says "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." Pro argues that " ... the forensic evidence requirement becomes necessary for proof beyond a reasonable doubt every time." I will admit I have to guess at what Pro is getting at. I'm sure Pro will correct me if I have guessed wrong. Here is my guess: "Assume the Constitution is not amended. The proposed system will allow the new system without an amendment, so there is no need for an amendment. Since the Constitution is not amended, the "bedrock" principles in the Constitution will still stand. Those bedrock principles mean that the Courts will rule that if forensic evidence is required to apply the death the penalty, then forensic evidence is required for any assertion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The justice system will then be severely damaged because the State will be unable to prove guilt in the many cases where there is no forensic evidence." I am sorry if I am not correct in interpreting Pro, but that is my understanding. If that is the argument, it fails because under a "should" resolution, if the Constitution requires an amendment, even an amendment to an alleged "bedrock" principle, then it ought to be amended to ensure greater justice under the legal system. The greater justice is achieved under the assumed greater justice in having a death penalty rather than not, and in having fewer erroneous executions rather than more. The supposed "bedrock principle" that would be upset does not diminish anyone's rights as they currently exist, it would provide an extra measure of certainty for the imposition of the death penalty. Given that there is going to be a death penalty, why would there any objection to raising the level of certainty required? I do not know if Pro's argument is correct that under current interpretation of the constitution, if having an extra measure of certainty for the penalty phase of the trial would legally force forensic evidence as the universal standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt." If so, the interpretation is unreasonable, and if that unreasonableness exists, all the more reason to clear it up with an amendment. Pro cites case law that asserts "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "a subjective state of near certitude." Pro uses that as a basis for claiming that if forensic evidence is required for "near certitude" then it would in law have to be universally applied. One refutation of that argument is to change law to overthrow that court interpretation. However, it is also questionable that forensic evidence upsets the criteria of "near certitude" at all. Under the current system, false executions are extremely rare. Some have been discovered by applying DNA evidence techniques to prior convictions. The current standard of "near certitude" is working in producing few false convictions. We agree that forensic evidence produces even greater certitude. So that logically no reason to upset the old standard. In other words, it not only legally possible to have greater standard for the death penalty, it is logical to do so within the bounds of existing case law. We seem to agree that "the CSI effect" exists, so that juries sometimes require DNA evidence to convict of first degree murder. If so, what is to stop a judge from ruling "near certitude requires forensic evidence." This would be within the realm of modern constructive legal theory that varies standards according to the changing values of society. I don't like that theory of law --I think legislators should do that rather than judges-- but it nonetheless happens. If the system proposed by the resolution is affirmed, then that will be prevented, either by legislation or Constitutional amendment, as required. 1. Con argues, "The big difference under Pro's plan is the defense attorney would have a very solid constitutional argument available, now they do not." This argument assumes that the Constitution is not amended. As discussed, if the resolution is found favorable, then the Constitution should be amended accordingly. Pro also argues "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." I do not understand whose behavior that Pro claims is being rewarded. The defendant isn't rewarded, because he ends up executed more often than under the present system. Moreover, we seem to agree that de facto juries now reward defendants by lowering the offense of which they would otherwise be found guilty based on the doubt per the CSI effect. The proposed system increases just convictions. 2. Pro argues, "Then we should expect such a standard in all cases if this standard is codified." That assumes that death penalty cases are not special, that murder under special circumstances must logically be equated with littering under the law. If the law makes such a false equation, then it is time we fixed it. 3. We agree that plea bargains are Constitutional. The new system allows the prosecutor to use the death penalty as part of plea bargain whenever it does not take away the defendant's right to a jury trial. One case is getting a killer to provide details of crime, like the location of the body. 4. I claimed that some cases are appealed solely because the death penalty is applied. Pro rebutted that some cases are appealed when there is no death penalty involved. Pro is correct. Just about everyone knows people who have appealed traffic tickets. However, that does not refute my claim that some cases are appealed solely because the death penalty was at stake. I cited a case of that previously. The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court has written of the flood of death penalty appeals, as distinct from other appeals, that are overloading the court system. http://www.latimes.com... Some states have laws by which all death penalty convictions are automatically appealed "Death penalty cases are automatically appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals." http://www.lampofhope.org... That's not true of lesser penalties. Pro did not rebut my contention that more convictions would be sustained. 5. Pro argues "Technology does not dictate these terms, our courts do, and if forensics is codified to ensure certainty, then all defendants will enjoy the burden." I do not agree that courts ought to determine the law if new technology demands new approaches. The technology doesn't "determine" the change, it enables changes to be made by legislators, which is what is proposed. We can get greater certainty in death penalty cases, so that ought to be reflected in law. ===================== Society will benefit through greater justice under the proposed system. The resolution is affirmed.