I agree with your idea about “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. I have served on enough juries and heard enough horror stories from friends who have also served, to be extremely wary about jury decisions that the doubt is small enough to execute a human being. The cliches are not urban myths: I have actually heard another juror say: "He wouldn't be here if he wasn't guilty." My wife has actually heard: "He may not have done this crime, but sending him to jail will teach him a lesson so he won't commit a crime in the future."
I also have great reservations about the value of most "eye witness" identifications by strangers to the accused. In most cases, all they can really say is "The guy who I saw committing the crime looks like this guy at the defendent bench." But that is never how the question is asked or answered in court.
On the other hand, there are a few cases where there is zero doubt. For example, when the police interrupt a bank robbery/massacre and capture a wounded suspect at the end of a shoot-out. Or a case in which a serial kidnapper/rapist/murderer is caught in such damning and pathological circumstances that the world would just be a better place without them. (EG. Jeffrey Dahmer) In a case like that, I could sentence someone to death. Perhaps that comes from personal experiences killing dangerous animals like rattlesnakes, where I had to decide that death was the only [but regretable] option.
