http://www.fdp.dk/uk/couns-uk.htmIn most civilized countries it is a major principle that the defendant shall have the benefit of doubt and be sentenced only after a fair trial with a competent defense counsel.
This is allegedly also the principle in American court rooms, but it is far from reality.
It seems that in many death penalty courses the primary concern is to have the accused found guilty, while the question whether he is guilty is less important for many of the courts. And so is the question whether there are mitigating evidence that could give another sentence than death.
At least many courts accept a standard of defence counselling which provides no guarantee at all for the defendant to have a fair trial, resulting in the risk of innocent persons being executed or people being executed in spite of mitigating evidence.
95% of the immates on death row are indigent and have never been able to provide the money for a decent defense lawyer, so their only option was to accept a public defender, normally appointed by the court.
And many judges repeatedly appoint incompetent lawyers who are supposed to provide a twisted form of "speedy justice." They ease the pursuit of the death penalty by putting on a tepid defense, filing few motions on behalf of their clients, expediting the trial, and filing only a perfunctory appeal. By doing so they cause less trouble for the court and the judge than attorneys who conscientiously challenge the state at every step of the proceedings.
The fact that it also dramatically increases the risk of execution an innocent person seems to be less important.
Just a few examples: