I’m among a minority among conservatives, in that I’m generally against the death penalty. I do not oppose it because I think it’s inherently immoral or because I don’t think the government has the right to execute convicted criminals. I am opposed to the death penalty because I don’t think its use can be accurate, save for a couple of examples.

If a defendant confesses to the crimes, then the state has the right to execute that person. There is no greater eveidence in this case than confession. Also, if there is some kind of indisputable evidence, like actual videotape or photographic evidence showing the crime being committed, then the death penalty can be used. In all other cases, regardless of the quality of the evidence or the alleged guilt of the defendant, the state simply cannot be sure of that person’s true guilt. Unless you can completely sure, then the death penalty is not an appropriate punishment.

All that to say that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is trying to convince people that he can come up with scientific standards that would meet this burden of proof:

Just as science can be used to free the innocent, it can also be used to identify the guilty … We want a standard of proof that is incontrovertible … When the legislation has been crafted superbly and has avoided the kind of pitfalls that it had in the past, we believe we will have sufficient support to proceed with capital punishment in these narrow circumstances.

Good luck, Mitt, but I don’t think it’s going to work out for you.