Foreword: I am not explicitly against the death penalty, but am unsure of its place in a modern justice system.

I just wanted to foist one of the common views inevitably expressed in a discussion of the death penalty:

Would it be possible to dramatically increase the standard of evidence/burden required by the state to prove someone was guilty in order to have the death penalty given, and dramatically decrease the time separating conviction and sentence? Would it be reasonable for acts so heinous that there is not even a sliver of chance that the actor could be reformed would be unceremoniously executed and cleaned from the planet, but for the evidence required to be so insurmountable that there is almost no possible means of wrongful conviction?

It seems to me to be something of a compromise, and something I could get behind. I have no reservations with the summary execution if people subdued while shooting up movie theaters/schools/etc. I don't think there is a possibility of reforming them, and I don't want them to twice strain the system by engaging in legal battles. On the same hand, I don't want a person with any chance for exoneration to be executed, a final punishment that cannot be undone (though, truthfully, a life sentence may be similar, as I very much doubt the possibility of returning to normal life after being exonerated 20 or 30 years following your trial.

In truth, I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I am interested in more intellectually capable people sharing theirs.