Can the Death Penalty be Reformed to Protect the Innocent?

It's rare that any of us give even the slightest praise to Republicans, but today I make an exception for Mitt Romney, the moderate Republican governor of oh-so-liberal Massachusetts.

AP reports "...Romney is preparing to file a death penalty bill early next year that he says is so carefully written it will guarantee only the guilty are executed.

Based in part on the findings of a death penalty panel he appointed, the bill would limit capital punishment to the "worst of the worst" crimes including terrorism, the murder of police officers, murder involving torture and the killing of witnesses. It also would use evidence such as DNA testing to protect the innocent.

Romney wants his death penalty bill to be a model for other states.

'The weakness in the death penalty statutes in other states, of course, is the fear that you may execute someone who is innocent. We remove that possibility,' Romney said."

Now, of course, Romney is trying to bring the death penalty to a state that doesn't have it, but at least he is trying to make it as mistake-proof as possible. Now I don't think that you can make it 100% infallible, and personally, I prefer the "life without parole" option (which in all its brazen idiocy, my home state of Texas, along with New Mexico, are the only death penalty states that don't offer it - I wonder why we are no.1?) anyway. However, in place like Texas, where there is nary a hope of convicing many people that we should abolish the death penalty, I support this kind of reform. At least the certainty of guilt of those we execute would be far less questionable. Now whether we could convince conservatives for even this kind of sensible, moderate reform is another story...