Summary
We support:
- Limiting the use of the death penalty to the most serious and clearly proven cases
- Establishing a higher standard of proof in capital cases
- Prohibiting the use of the death penalty when convictions rely primarily on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony or unrecorded confessions
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
Background
Advances in DNA-based forensic evidence have demonstrated that wrongful convictions do occur, including in capital cases. Research has also shown that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable and that false confessions can occur under certain conditions.
At the same time, there remains significant public support for retaining the death penalty in the most serious crimes.
A Higher Standard for Capital Cases
We propose a compromise: establishing a higher burden of proof for cases in which the death penalty is sought—one that exceeds the traditional “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
In practice, this would mean:
- Restricting the use of the death penalty in cases that rely on eyewitness identification without strong corroborating evidence
- Requiring that confessions be supported by a complete video record of the interrogation process
The goal is not to eliminate the death penalty, but to ensure that it is applied only in cases where there is an exceptionally high degree of certainty of guilt.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the Next Policy Position
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.