Unfortunately, you didn't take the hand I was extending.
What you SHOULD have said in response to my badgering is that you have a problem with the system. Specificallly, you have a problem with jurors who, in your opinion, may not take into account the poor visibility when evaluating the testimony of eye witnesses.
I actually agree with you on this. Having been on more than one jury, I've see how unprofessional/irrational/inconsistent juries can be.
Having identified the problem, we could then come up with a solution.
The answer is, PROFESSIONAL JURORS. Jurors who actually want to be there, who understand the law and who possess some level of critical thinking skill.
As a citizen, that's what I would want. As an accused man who is innocent, that's what I would want. As an accused man who is guilty, that's NOT what I would want - but who cares what the criminals want? And as an attorney, that's NOT what I would want. But again, who cares what the attorneys want?
This would do nothing to help you with your hangup over the death penalty (and that's worth another debate) but it should at least remove some of your doubts as to whether condemned men were justly tried.
| 
