We are on record at this site (see the first and the second entries, from September 2002 and April 2003, respectively) as advocating for a new "absolute certainty" standard of guilt as a predicate to the imposition of the death penalty. As we stated in the first entry, the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is appropriate for a finding of guilt and for a penalty involving a fine or imprisonment. Given the many errors that our judicial system has encountered, however, a higher standard should be required when the ultimate penalty is to be imposed. There just is no commutation or reversal of a death sentence once it is carried out.
We now see that our argument and position have been accepted in some quarters. In Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney is advocating for a new death penalty statute, but in recognition of the faults of the current system, he is pushing for new safeguards. In October 2003, he appointed a commission whose charge is to "build a more perfect death-penalty statute", reports the Christian Science Monitor. The commission is weighing a number of factors, but it will eventually
put greater demands on prosecutors and police, limit the type of murders that qualify for the death penalty, and demand a higher level of proof. 'Going to a punishment that is irrevocable requires a level of certainty beyond what we've ever had before," says [the state's Lieutenant Governor].
And now, in New York state, the lawyers for a convicted killer are asking that state's highest court to impose the absolute certainty standard as a new common-law requirement, the New York Times reports.
11:31:40 PM 
|
|
