Melvin Watt: “Mr. Chairman, let me just submit to my colleagues that what would be pernicious is not the provisions of this amendment.…”

“Mr. Chairman, let me just submit to my colleagues that what would be pernicious is not the provisions of this amendment. What would be pernicious is if our country put somebody to death, and then found that what they were being put to death for was untrue. And that has been happening more and more recently with the advent of new technological advances, such as the advances in DNA research. We are able now to go back 20 or 30 years and find out that people have in fact been put to death by our country, by our system of criminal justice, for a crime that they did not commit. That is what is pernicious. This amendment has nothing to do with the burden of proof. The burden of proof is whether you are guilty or innocent. In our system of justice, that burden of proof is, in a criminal case, beyond a reasonable doubt. This amendment goes to what is considered after there has been a determination of guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It goes to what you consider in determining whether there is a death penalty assessed, whether you put somebody to death.”