How is this for an overhaul of the death penalty in the US?

#1. Only sentence people to die who are convicted with DNA evidence, or caught on film. This prevents even 1 innocent person from being put to death.
#2. If you are convicted using DNA evidence, you do not get any appeals. you cannot appeal DNA anyway, so why bother. This will save millions in tax dollars
#3. From conviction to death will be less then 6 months. Without appeals, there is no reason to kepp them alive.
#4. Death will be from a gun shot to head, while the convict is lying in a grave. No mess, no fuss, and its quick. This will also save millions in tax dollars.
#5. Insane or retarded means nothing. If convicted under the terms above, you still die.

Collectively this will save the country 100's of millions of dollars, and let prosecuters focus attention other places. What do you think?
most of the things you have recommended here I agree with, however I have some questions and comments for you...

First: In terms of DNA, how would the government be completely sure of the DNA? Would it be tested and retested over and over? Also, what if the person who's DNA is at the scene is there by chance? That is not taken into account which leads to the next point.

Second: Appeals are a necessary part of the court system. You are right on saying money would be saved but I think a better way to decide if appeals should be allowed would be for the judge of the case to make a decision of whether or not the prosecution has proved the defense guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Third: I also agree that a gun shot to the head would be faster and save more money. But think about the family of the convicted. They would have to go to their relatives funeral is watching them get their brains blown out. Electric chair or lethal injection are the safest and cleanest methods of execution. Finally, would these executions be public?

Fourth: Insanity or being retarded is a legitimate plea. If the person does not understand the difference between right and wrong, they shouldn't be killed and taken out of the gene pool. That is inhumane. They should go to a mental institution for the rest of their lives, not killed mercilessly. Again, think of the families who would be hurt by having to watch their retarded relative, who didn't know what he or she was doing, killed.

All in all, however, i agree with you, our legal system in regards to the death penalty should be revamped to save more time and money. Thank you for your time.
I think it sort of lacks due process and consists of both cruel and unusal punishment. DNA can be wrong when samples are tampered with or the tech makes a mistake.
I totally disagree.Killing people makes the 'killer' and his buddies feel better - great for the vengeance quotient. You did not create the person and you have no right to take a life. Does this frustrate us occasionally, to let a murderer sit in prison alive for years? Sure, but we are more humane - or at least we should be. We are all God's children and we should treat everyone as such - even the bad ones.
Sounds good to me. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' fits in perfectly. A gun shot to the head isn't cruel and unusual because people do it all the time, all across the world, plus its quick and painless. We need to clear the prisons as well. They're overflowing with minial drug offenders, and since we're not going to be legalizing marijuana any time soon, we need to cut corners any way we can.


Answers:
While I personally agree with you, the Constitution and the Amendments would not allow it.

The world has changed since the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution. Such as, the 4th Amendment was to keep the Kings men from searching your home for stuff the King may want... Not to allow drug dealers to mule heroin!

But, we have to live by the law of the land. Sure, it is not perfect, but it is still the best in the world.
You realize with your metal state (I'm going with retarded), making #5 a law would end up screwing you?
Looks decent except for two problems.

First DNA is irrefutable...except when it is contaminated or tampered with...in Cleveland a man was recently released from prison when it was determined the crime lab technition planted his DNA in the sample and they found he did it in numerous cases.to elimnate the right to appeal would still open up the opportunity for flase convictions.you can limit the amount of appeals but they still must be able to challenge the test.

Second...the other problem with the death penalty is bias...is has been shown that there has been bias in some implementations of the death penalty in whether to charge a person with a capital offense or not...this still does not address the fact that some people still are more likely to be put to death than others.

Other than that it looks good...but I would make the execution public and gruesome...hanging, dismemberment...whatever has the greatest effect on the crowd and increase any deterant effect.
I've heard alot of people joke about this...one bullet to the head is all they need...I agree with 1 and 2.3 should be immediately...why wait 6 months? If they are 100% guilty, why let victims wait 6 months..(If I was Lacie Peterson's' mother, he wouldn't have made it to trial) but with no 4, who would pull the trigger..can't think of a logical answer about 5.....
i'm partly against the death penalty, because slave labor is just sooo goood for an economy. look at china...

but hey, ya gotta start somewhere!
Not bad, not bad at all but you need to include the ones that confess.
On the positive side, you understand the importance of solid DNA evidence. On the negative side, there have been several cases, not an overwhelming amount, but several, in which lab experts lied so again you would have the problem of killing innocent people.

On the negative side...so much! If killing is wrong, you don't kill people. Killing people to settle any score only endorses killing people to settle scores, it is a horrible example for the State to set. What appeals to people about the death penalty? Blood lust. Perhaps the most destructive, primitive, evil motivation in the human mind, and the death penalty stimulates this evil, destructive, primitive drive--for this reason and the others I cited, states and countries that have the death penalty almost invariably have higher murder rates than those that don't. In other words, the death penalty must be opposed precisely because people LIKE it.
I completely disagree with you're point. DNA evidence is wrong, video evidence is not a pure form of evidence as it still requires interpretation and a human element. Innocent people could still be convicted. Many people will not be able to be convicted if they are only allowed to use capital punishment for the small amount of people who are under your standards. Although television makes you think so, the majority of crimes are not proven using the foresenic evidence.
Appeals are required by the 5th and 14th amendment. Depriving them is unconsitutional. Removing #2 then removes #3.
#4 is sane, but I do not know about the millions of tax dollars.
#5 is impossible. The Supreme Court has already ruled against it and if the person is retarded or insane you can not prove the mental state required and therefore you can not prove the case, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Good thinking, but you need to understand more about the death penalty first.