I have been for the death penalty and remain so, but due to uncovered innocence based upon DNA evidence, I like the judges in these rulings believe that MORE time needs to be spent on cases before someone is the target of a possible irreversible error. It is one thing to make a mistake that costs someone money, etc., but quite another to end someone's life. You continually hear about technicalities getting people off -- technicalities work the other way also. Restricting important information to juries has become the norm rather than the exception. The latest infamous case was where two INDEPENDENT trials took place -- one accused a man of killing some children's father, the other case accused the children of killing their own father. At no time was any hint of a conspiracy made, so we had two mutually exclusive trials where the prosecuting DAs were swearing up and down that his (in his trial) defendant did it. Now, I will take a wild guess and say at least one of the DAs was lying his head off. Because the guy didn't die twice, and since there was no attempt to hook the defendants together, obviously at least one set of defendants didn't do it. Death penalty ruled unconstitutional
