The problem with your premise is the idea that it must be clear the person was "unquestionably guilty".
How is that different from "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?
I do see a difference. Beyond reasonable doubt suggests to me that it's highly unlikely the person did not commit the crime. Unquestionably guilty tells me that there is no room for error, such as plenty of witnesses, video evidence, multiple sources of forensic evidence such as finger prints, DNA, tire marks, etc. all pointing to the same person, taped uncoerced confession, etc. That seems to me to be a higher degree of certainty that just beyond reasonable doubt.
I imagine that those on the jury in the trials of the wrongfully accused were sure he was guilty.....especially those misled by the psychotic and/or incompetent government pathologist.
Agreed. And guilty beyond reasonable doubt should suffice for a life sentence. However, when the evidence is absolutely overhelming, such as taped crimes confessed to, etc. then while the judge should still have the freedom to give a life sentence, death should be the default unless the judge decides otherwise.
Here's my proposal, as I have put forth many times before.........execution for mass killers.
That I can certainly agree with.
Each murder tried individually...........each murder by law tried in front of a different judge, and a different jury...........each sentence passed down separately.....but on the third (and subsequent) convictions for murder, the judge has the option of sentencing the individual to death........within 30 days.
Here you seem to be following along a similar idea as mine, of not being satisfied with simply 'beyond reasonable doubt', expecting a very high level of probability beyond what we'd expect for a simple prison sentence.
I also like the idea of a cut-off period. After all, if somehow the convict manages to survive beyond the cut-off date owing to appeals, questionable evidence, or whatever other delay, then maybe the evidence is not strong enough for death, and so it automatically defaults to life. That could also avoid spending tax dollars on appeal after appeal, etc. If after the cut off period he's still alive, then it's too late for the state to kill him and he lives.
Some people are so evil they need to be cut away from the body of society and disposed of in the most effective, efficient way.......
Agreed. Though I would say all persons deserve a proper burial, even if not for their sakes, for the sake of family who may have loved them at one point, so as to reduce the trauma on others.
Who said anything about a confession? Plenty of people have been convicted erroneously without a confession. This is a red herring.
Some do confess. Some do tape the crimes. Some do leave plenty of evidence behind. Certainly you won't through that in the same category as those without confession, no video or picture of the crimes, and forensic evidence from only one or few pathologists.
Because overwhelming evidence can still lead to wrongful convictions.
I won't deny that. That said, if the bar is raised much higher than simply 'beyond reasonable doubt', the chances of it happening are greatly reduced.
Are you willing to give up your life for this? It could happen.
Yes, it could. The chances of it happening would be slim. But that said, if the evidence was that overwhelming, then I'd be pretty well guaranteed life in prison anyway, and between that and death, it wouldn't make a big difference to me anyway.
