We seem to be getting into a binary area of "apply the death penalty liberally" or "don't apply the death penalty at all". There is the middle ground. As I said earlier, I am for the death penalty but under current conditions, believe it should only be applied very carefully. Two simple examples:
1) A nutjob dons his battle rattle, including his Gopro, and runs into a nightclub killing people. Additionally there are security cameras. Additionally there are 100 witnesses. Fry him without delay.
2) Police find a woman's body in an apartment with a knife in it. The knife has the husband's DNA on it. The two of them were in a heated argument over alimony the day before. The husband shouted, so that neighbors could hear, "I should kill you!" Do we fry the husband? Or is the knife left over from when they were living together? Did she cheat on her current boyfriend, who heard about the argument and took precautions when stabbing her with a knife from her kitchen drawer?
In instance #2, a ton of factors could either railroad the husband or else, through diligent work, discover it was the boyfriend. I wouldn't want to be the husband without a solid alibi in a city with a less than diligent police force. Iwould certainly hope, that even unjustly sitting in prison, I might be able to eventually prove my innocence.