I am unique among criminal defense attorneys, in that I do believe that there is a need for a death penalty. Not the way that it is used now, but to acknowledge that there are some people that are just plain evil. Whether from being sociopaths, or whatever, they are a danger to everyone no matter who who they are. I remember that guy who attacked the woman at the Seeley Lake work center and almost killed her. While he was awaiting trial, he beat another guy to death in jail with an exercise bike seat. The guy he killed was in jail for a DUI. I don't think that DUIs merit the death penalty. His killer was sentenced to death but committed suicide instead.
On the other hand, there is the story linked above about an actual innocent man who was executed. So, how to deal with the twin paradox? My solution is to change the standard for a death penalty from beyond a reasonable doubt, to beyond any doubt.
Most juries don't understand the concept of reasonable doubt. They want to support the State in their prosecution on the defendant. Some brave souls will resist the herd mentality, but most jurors want only to get out of there and get backwith their busy lives.
Since a defendant's freedom is on the line, we require the highest level of legal proof. For their life to be on the line, maybe we need more proof.