The main thing I will add to this thread from my viewpoint.
If only circumstantial evidence can be presented then I believe the death penalty in this case should not be the result. In our legal system if there is reasonable doubt then the person should be considered innocent. I do however believe that from Circumstantial evidence one can make enough case in many circumstances to rightfully convict someone, but it should not be for the death penalty.
I do however support the death penalty in certain instances such as if a murder was committed (Especially in every case if a child was murdered), and if there is undeniable evidence that the person on trial committed that heinous crime with the intent of murder. These are my own views as I understand some will not share them.
