No-one can deny that mistakes are made and the trial system of the western world is not perfect.
What about (in the case of the US) taking the responsibility for the death penalty out of the hands of the state.
It becomes an executive decision. People of a state (state govt) can request it, but the case has to meet certain requirements.
Absolute proof: Multiple witnesses, confession.
Multiple homicide: Events like the Dalmer case.
IMO, there would be a lot less and most people would be quite convinced of the guilt in those cases. It would also take the local pressure off the state to execute those people. It becomes a more objective case at a national level.
Problem is, what do with all those folks who are probably guilty but don't meet the requirements.
Well, what is the death penalty really?
It's a society's declaration of its unwillingness to have certain individuals within its scope. We try hiding them in prisons, but sometimes the crimes are so vile that the aftermath still reminds us of that persons presence in our system.
It's like having a large, bright, noxious weed in the yard that, even though it's covered up by other bushes, it still affects us in the nearby house.
So to take it to an objective rational level, do we 'weed' out and burn those individuals or do we just toss them on a rubbish heap somewhere where they might stay around for a bit, but as it's a dump, no-one minds them taking root there.
Or do we accept that even weeds have a role and need and place or use them somewhere that they become useful?
I say use them to make insulin or organ donation.
j/k