Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

For a simple mind, yes. You don't have one, I don't have one, and neither does Schraf.The act is ensured. The reason is not, and that is why MOTIVE is still an integral part of nailing someone. Besides this is not a novel idea you know....sorry.As far as framing to such an extent that I saw you downplay....isn't that one of the biggest reasons OJ Simpson was found not guilty? Weren't the LAPD detectives and forensics lab allegedly trying to frame him?
- - maybe I got it wrong - -

Actually, this isn't true. Objectively, there have been quite a few studies (I would have to look them up) that actually show that it is not a deterrent. Since having punishments is one of the ways we use to deter criminal activity this makes death as a punishment more of a mode for retribution than deterring others. I might be going out on a limb, but as an example, the death penalty is a deterrent for you or I, but I'm guessing we don't process the world like Dahmer or Gacy.

Come on, I meant that if everything were as simple as not having to think about possible reasons (i.e the MOTIVE I certainly mentioned) then yes, this plan does the trick.Aside from the video I see nothing in your scenario list that is "case closed" and therefore could be questioned especially for a CERTIFIED skeptic such as yourself. So, then I'd have to ask you if you would then support cameras everywhere (aside from a person's home unless they installed it)?

Oh, okay. Just thought I'd throw in on that point.

So, if the police had this evidence would there still be a judge and jury? If yes, then why (considering that we are treating this as a "done deal")? If no, then don't you think this would foster a potential loophole for corruption and "framing" of someone? I for one am not surprised. I second the "no cameras". Humans, just like everything else in nature, tend towards chaos (my opinion of course). If you get a chance to see George Carlin's new show I recommend it (I think it's gonna be on HBO soon..do they get that in Europe?).

Alright, I think it's pretty clear. Let me know if this is the way you are proposing this should proceed.1)The death penalty will ONLY be used in the circumstances where there is no ambiguity over whether or not the person committed a crime (the list of pre-reqs in the OP, maybe even more)?2)If all of the parameters you listed in the OP are not met then the death penalty IS NOT a punishment that can be decided for since this would lead to the possibility, depending on how the evidence was presented, of a reasonable doubt....and of course the ultimate problem of convicting an innocent person to death.Seems to me that the instances where it, the death penalty, would even be an option would be far and few between...good, and even then it would be finalized by maybe a panel of judges?Seems like this proposal might work.What is the other thread where Schiavo's death is being discussed?

1. Yeah, oversight on my part. I think that could be eliminated actually.2. By "obvious and easily met condition" you are referring to the confession? Well, the above statement I made (which is not what Holmes originally suggested...you're right) I think would make this less of a similarity with not having the death penalty at all.

I would suggest the following:1. Randomly chosen judges from across the country after fitting a set of criteria based on judgements they have passed down prior to being on the "short list".2. Since these panels would not be meeting on a regular basis, the judges could be notified and then meet at a designated location.3. The names of the judges would not be divulged.4. All judges must agree on the final verdict.5. Also, let's remember that it is not everyday that a detective gets lucky enough to get the evidence list holmes presented.I might even suggest that the relevant lab technicians from these cases be required to weigh in with their specific role as well as the detectives and witnesses, on an individual basis. Things like this.I don't know if holmes has different ideas on how to approach the judge issue.

Hence the criteria for the "short list"?Well, crappity crap Schraf Being a scientist as well as attempting most of the time to be concientious I cannot offer an ironclad scenario. However, everything taken TOGETHER I think truly reduces the chances of an innocent getting zapped to almost ZERO:1) Likelihood of a crime meeting the list holmes set up to be eligible for the death penalty.
2) Combined with the likelihood of the cops trying to frame a person.
3) Combined with the forensic techs in on the frame.
4) Combined with the likelihood of EVERY SINGLE judge being racist.Wow! If you met all those unfortunate requirements you must have really had a nasty prior life!!!!

Take it easy holmes.