Stairway to Heaven... literally.

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a delicate issue for most people, and one that cannot be taken lightly. For the most part, every single state follows the same steps/stages of the death penalty; some states have different procedures. The process is split up into various stages, which have sub-categories as well, starting with the Pre-Trial. In the Pre-Trial, leads are formed based upon witness testimonies and potential suspects. I believe that this step in the process is a fair process that does not intend to prove an innocent suspect guilty, unless given enough evidence. With the Preliminary Hearing, it is decided whether or not the accused suspect has enough evidence to prove him or herself guilty. If one is proven to be guilty with the evidence, then he or she goes before a grand jury, (usually about twenty three people), and it is decided based upon the evidence if a trial can be held with charges. The Pre-Trial stage cannot move forward unless there is sufficient evidence against the suspect. Therefore, the Pre-Trial stage is one that tries to protect the suspect's innocence, unless evidence points in a more guilty direction.
The second section of the process, which is the Guilt Phase Trial, is in favor of the defendant's innocence. The jurors of the trial are to be "unbiased", and to consider the aggravating and mitigating evidence in the case, not their own personal opinion(s) about the death penalty. Both the prosecutor and the defendant are able to provide evidence, and provide insight on whether or not the defendant is guilty. Plus, the defendant is presumed to be innocent, until proven otherwise. With this process, the judge also sets guidelines for the jury to ensure that they follow the law as well. This is indeed an "innocent favoring" process because the defendant is presumed innocent, unless further evidence or points prove him or her to be guilty.
I believe that the third stage of the death penalty is constructed to ensure the defendant proven guilty. The aggravating facts in the case that are considered by the jury are meant to amplify reasoning to execute the defendant. In addition, the migrating facts do nto justify or excuse the crime, but it can reduce the intensity of the penalty. Therefore, they may "lighten" the defendant's case, but in the end, do not help to abolish the reality of the crimes committed. Plus, statements are recorded into the record which inform the jury of the fiancial, physical, and psychological impacts that the crime has had on the victim and the victim's family. This completely points toward guilt for the defendant because it is almost guaranted that any victim and his or her family has suffered damage from the crime committed. Finally, in the jury sentence recommendations, the jury chooses either a death sentence, or life imprisonment without parole, or a significant numbe of years in prison. The judge then, depending on the state, will either take the recommendation into consideration, or may be required to follow through with the recommendation.
By time the defendant reaches the fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the death penalty process, the presumption of innocence is removed from the defendant. In addition, a lawyer is not required for the direct appeal process, (the fourth step). I feel that these steps are generally fair, but only if the previous steps were treated fairly as well. There is a period of time after the sentence to attempt to bring in new evidence, which may help the defendant. Hopefully, if the system was played fairly and the defendant truly is guilty, by time the defendant reaches these step, he or she is proven guilty.
I feel that the seventh step, the clemency process, is a very stressful step since-for the most part- it puts the power all in one official. Even though a board can advice that official, he or she still holds the final decision all in his or her hands. Once the proven-guilty-defendant reaches the stage of the actual execution, it is very hard to prove innocence and remove the punishment of the death penalty. It is hard to stop the process that has been in motion for quite some time.
After reviewing the methods of execution involved in the death penalty- hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, & lethal injection- I feel that none of them could be labeled as "humane". To intentionally kill another human being, regardless of the reasoning, I believe is not a humane act. Of course, I consider myself an optimist and I try to see the good in people. However, I feel that there are execution methods that are far more "humane"-if at all- than others. For example, I believe that the electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad. All of them have a potential for "quick" deaths, but also a potential for errors that result in a horribly painful death. Overall, I feel that all of the methods would be considered "cruel & unusual" since they kill another human being, however, the four that I mentioned above stand out from lethal injection.