The Death Penalty: Does One Size Fit All?

Phoenix, AZ— Some crimes are so horrific that a quick death for the perpetrator feels justified. But our criminal justice system has a fundamental flaw: the standard of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This nebulous term has become a source of injustice, particularly in capital cases.

Having witnessed numerous criminal trials, including those where the death penalty was at stake, I’ve seen firsthand the confusion over what “reasonable doubt” really means. It’s a vague standard that varies from one juror to the next. And when the crime is especially heinous, that ambiguity can lead to false convictions. People, naturally outraged by terrible acts, can be eager to punish, and often that means overlooking the very doubt that should protect the innocent.

I’ve come to despise the term “beyond a reasonable doubt,” because I’ve watched as innocent people were convicted, and in other cases, where the convicted might have been innocent. Worse, I’ve seen law enforcement and prosecutors in high-profile cases intentionally hide exculpatory evidence to secure a conviction. The pressure to win often outweighs the duty to seek the truth.

Then there’s the issue of eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. In many cases, people are absolutely certain they saw someone, only to be proven wrong when surveillance video footage comes to light. The fact is, people lie under oath more easily than in everyday conversation, and when the prosecution’s star witness is a co-conspirator looking for a deal, the system becomes even murkier.

The solution? We must raise the standard of proof, particularly in cases where life or death is on the line. Prosecutors won’t like it, but if we want to eliminate wrongful convictions, we need something more concrete than “reasonable doubt.” No innocent person should ever face death, and the only way to ensure that is to demand absolute certainty of guilt.

Our justice system is many things, but perfect it is not. In recent decades, over 200 people have been exonerated and taken off death row after new evidence surfaced. Some spent the majority of their lives in prison before finally proving their innocence. If we’re going to take someone’s life—or lock them away forever—we should be sure beyond a shadow of doubt.

There’s another issue we can’t ignore. Some killers act in a single moment of madness and, after 20 or 30 years in prison, they become entirely different people. Our justice system doesn’t account for the possibility of redemption or transformation. Should we be sentencing people to death or life without the chance of ever considering the person they might become?

The death penalty, and our system of capital punishment, demands reform. One size does not fit all. The stakes are too high to settle for a standard that allows for uncertainty.