I believe your are confusing the standard of proof for conviction with the punishment. Conviction of crime, does not directly correlate to the punishment, and in particular, the inability to correct a state enacted execution when exculpatory evidence is shown.

Like NJ, NV, AZ, CA and some other states, HI has no reciprocity to pass the bar. One either has to be sponsored pro hac vice, or take the exam. Hawaii law tends to follow the modern common law and the uniform codes and it is one of the few western states that doesn't have community property laws.

Good point, but not the one I am attempting to make.

Or is it your contention that taking a life under any circumstances is immoral? I think that's a reasonable argument.

But I thought you argument was more concerned with accidental execution of the innocent. If that is the case, then my argument goes directly to the establishment of guilt prior to sentencing. If the current standard, reasonable doubt is sufficient then your concern about capitol punishment is disproportionate to the established convention.

But if your standard is that no innocent person could possibly be executed under any circumstance whatsoever, then we have to raise the standard of guilt to include circumstances that a reasonable person might not consider.

B

If the standard is that no innocent person could possibly be executed under any circumstance whatsoever, then you don't execute anybody. Problem solved, and we don't have to re-tool doubt standards.

__________________
1984 300TD

Yes, which goes to my comment that if one believes capital punishment to be immoral, etc.

But if one believes capital punishment is not immoral ....

B