Why isn't the burden of proof increased for murder cases?

Great ideas. What we have now works.

A Defense attorney needs to convince one juror of reasonable doubt. A hung jury can be as good as an acquittal. The D.A. needs to convince 12 jurors of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is anyone suggesting we make it 11 out of 12 or 10 out of 12 on murder cases?

As for wrongfully convicted people, how many people claim innocence before there was DNA, get their DNA tested and BOOM their DNA matches the DNA found at the crime scene? That doesn't make the news and it happens more than you think.

Now here is what I perceive as unfair. The D.A. has tremendous resources available to prosecute people accused of crimes. The average defendant whether on legal aid or paying it out of his or her own pocket can't match the D.A.'s resources. Very wealthy defendants can put up the money needed to fight in court. It is not a level playing field for all. That is unfortunate.

Specifically getting to your points...

People are creatures of habit and we all need money to live. If someone vanishes and their credit cards, debit cards and bank accounts have zero activity after they vanish, then that is a good indicator they are no longer alive. Vanishing is not a normal habit for anyone.

The rest of your points are too burdensome. IF all of them were in play then very few people would ever be prosecuted for murder. Very few murderers have witnesses let alone the kind you want. Do you want an America with spy cameras everywhere? That is what your plan would require. Some crimes have no witnesses. That's just how it goes. Witnesses are not a good thing if you are a criminal.

With your ludicrous requirements, no one would ever be convicted of murder.

DNA is a good thing, however, there are many cases where there is no DNA evidence. In other cases, such as a husband killing his wife in the home, the suspect's DNA will be all over everything anyway. Evidence has to have "probative value", meaning it helps prove some aspect of the case, or disprove that same aspect. So the husband's DNA is found in the house... it proves nothing.

Eye witnesses are the least reliable evidence in trial, for any crime. You would do good to find two persons that would give the same story about the TV show they both watched last night, let alone a description of a suspect.

For all the screaming about too many video cameras invading our lives, only a very small percentage of real estate is covered. Unless the suspect video tapes the crime themselves (it has been done!) the odds are actually small that anything was caught on video.

That's a great point.

That way, I could easily murder you and get away with it scot-free.

All I would have to do is either make sure there were no witnesses (or murder them also) or cameras rolling!

I could even walk away from the crime scene covered in your blood and carrying a gun that matched bullets found in your body, but as long as nobody actually saw me murder you or has any film footage, my state prosecutor wouldn't have a case!

Have you ever considered running for public office?

Body of the victim is almost always needed.

DNA- CSI isn't real. There isn't always DNA available.

2 Witnesses and video: So if I want to kill you and get away with it all I have to do is make sure that we are alone and there isn't a camera handy.

Great.