In a perfect world of course , there would be no serious predatory crime , and thus no need nor call to respond to it . We would n't have murder , attempted mass murder , or the sexual abuse of children . But alas , that world seems all too remote today . Assuming we continue to have murder and other serious crime which kills or maims innocents , what should we do about it ? Most of us believe that rarely , but sometimes , callous , depraved , vicious predators do deserve to die . Opinion : Death penalty is unchristian . And we feel certain that justice requires they get what they deserve . Related : Blecker joins CNN 's Google Hangout to answer your death penalty questions . But not all convicted murderers deserve to die . We must fundamentally commit ourselves to ensure that those who do n't deserve to die -- either because they did not really commit murder , or because they are not the worst of the worst of the worst -- will not be executed . We should construct our punishments more nearly to fit their crimes -- neither much more nor much less than what they deserve . 1 . Let 's have better definitions for who should die . I 've spent decades visiting prisons and interviewing convicted killers and corrections officers . I 'm convinced that states with the death penalty can and should morally refine their statutes . My crime and punishment memoir , `` The Death of Punishment , '' details many changes and suggests a model death penalty statute , reserved for especially heinous , atrocious and cruel killers . This includes not only sadistic serial murderers -- those who relish torturing their vulnerable victims , especially condemned for their cowardice -- but also cold , cruel , callous killers who may not intend to kill , but simply do n't give a damn . In short , mass murderers , terrorists , sadistic serial killers , contract killers or other paid assassins deserve to die . Once we more consistently condemn the attitude of those who act with a depraved indifference , we will also punish more severely `` red collar killers '' -- callous corporate executives who calculatedly cause the deaths of unsuspecting employees or consumers -- for the serious crimes they commit , albeit from the best of motives : the profit motive . In a more perfect world , we 'd shed double standards and embrace more nearly a uniform metric of justice . At the same time that we punish more , we should punish less . Remove many other standard -- aggravating circumstances which make a person eligible for execution in states that allow the death penalty . Robbery , burglary other than home invasion and drugs should not elevate murder into capital felony murder . If we drop economic crimes such as robbery and drugs as aggravating circumstances , racial disparity will drop significantly . Rape still qualifies as torture , however , and all other things equal , rapist murderers do deserve to die . In short , we can -- and should -- define the worst of our worst more clearly and punish them more nearly as they deserve . 2 . Let 's be more certain that they are guilty . Western culture has essentially committed us to a presumption of life , of innocence and we have long required special proof of guilt before we punish with death . `` Super due process '' requires vigorous defense counsel challenging the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury . Death ( or life without parole ) as society 's ultimate punishment demands even more , however . A jury should not only be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the condemned did it , but also that they deserve their punishment . In the separate penalty phase of a trial , where the question is not guilt or innocence , but life or death as punishment , a jury should be left with no lingering doubt -- no real doubt , however irrational -- about the convicted killer 's guilt . Even this should not be enough to condemn a vicious predator to die . A nearly unanimous jury should be convinced with no `` lingering or residual doubt '' that the convicted murderer did it , and to `` a moral certainty '' that he or she deserves to die for it . No state has adopted this higher , special burden of persuasion , but they should . 3 . Let 's choose a better execution method . Lethal injection -- which grabs headlines these days -- never was and never will be a good execution method . The execution scene I witnessed resembled final goodbyes at a hospital or hospice for the terminally ill . The dying person lies on a gurney , wrapped in white sheets , an IV attached , surrounded by medical technicians with loved ones in attendance . We should oppose lethal injection , not because it might cause pain , but because it certainly causes confusion , wantonly merging punishment and treatment . The firing squad seems to me the best of traditional methods , but a state might give a member of the victim 's family a choice among available constitutional options . In any case , when we do punish we should be clear and make it clear that we are punishing . We should reconnect the punishment to the crime . Before ( or after ) the condemned makes a final statement , the victim 's family or friends may display a brief audiovisual memorial of the victim 's life . We should make punishment honest and overt . 4 . Let 's take a hard look at inmates ' prison lifestyle . Most vicious killers a jury condemns to die will never be executed . And even those we do kill , will live out much of their lives on death row . For the worst of the worst whom we have condemned , daily life on death row should be their punishment . Their conditions should be no better than what corrections reserve for lesser criminals who commit additional offenses inside prison and are additionally punished with punitive or administrative segregation . It 's obscene today that sometimes our condemned killers inside prison live better than our working innocent poor in society . Specifically , within constitutional bounds , those we condemned to die or live a life in prison with no chance of parole -- the worst of the worst -- should be allowed only the minimum constitutionally mandated exercise , phone calls , or physical contact . They should not be permitted any communal form of recreation or play . For the rest of their lives , their food should be nutraloaf , nutritionally complete and tasteless . Photographs of their victims should be posted in their cells , out of reach , in visibly conspicuous places . Prison administration should make every effort to connect punishment to crime . Departments of corrections should administer prisons to protect the public , protect staff , and provide humane supervision of prisoners with opportunities and programs that meaningfully support successful community reintegration for the vast majority of offenders sentenced to a term of years or life with a possibility of parole . We must recognize that economic circumstances drive people to commit crimes . In a more perfect world we would stop punishing drug dealers as if they were murderers . We should allow and encourage lesser criminals to pay for the crimes and give them real opportunities to start fresh . But for those prisoners sentenced to death or life without parole , corrections should administer punishment : an unpleasant , restrictive daily regimen designed to continually convey society 's intense disapproval of the crime and the criminal . 5 . And when mistakes are made ? During the penalty phase of a capital trial , skilled defense attorneys should attempt effectively to humanize even guilty defendants . Anyone , including friends or family , may recount the convicted murderer 's good deeds or emphasize the killer 's own traumatic suffering or abuse as a child . But recognizing that even murderers remain human beings , defense attorneys should not discourage their clients from taking responsibility , nor use the defendants to promote their own abolitionist agenda . Prosecuting attorneys , in their turn , may call surviving friends or family to humanize the victim and testify to their own sense of loss . The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that survivors must express no opinion on the killer 's proper sentence . Regardless of how survivors feel , however , the victim 's opinion of the killer 's fate should count . Thus , a reliable living will or declaration of life should be admissible in the penalty phase . As long as evidence clearly supports it as authentic , the jury should hear that the victim would have opposed -- or supported -- the death penalty ( or life without parole ) for the killer and give that fact such weight as they think it deserves . In the unusual but real case where we later discover an innocent person has been condemned to die or imprisoned for life without parole , the state shall not only release that victim , but also pay substantial reparations to the wrongly condemned or surviving family , regardless of whether any public official intentionally or recklessly miscarried justice . And should an investigation clearly establish that prosecutors or police ever intentionally and unlawfully suppressed evidence of innocence while capitally prosecuting , they should themselves be prosecuted for attempted murder . If they recklessly caused the death or loss of liberty of the innocent , they should be prosecuted and punished for depraved indifference reckless endangerment . Again , there would be no vicious predators in a more perfect world , nor would innocents ever be convicted . However , in this world , we can -- and must -- do more to ensure that the punishments more nearly and reliably fit the crimes .
Death penalty advocate : Reserve executions for especially heinous , atrocious and cruel killers . Comment: Restrict death row inmates to minimal exercise , phone calls , or physical contact . Blecker : If innocent defendants are wrongly executed , families should be compensated .