Though in the case of appellate courts the burden of proof is very much on the convicted to show their trial was improper in some way (refer again to the link, where evidence was proven to be withheld from the defense but a judge ruled that didn't justify a new trial; the burden of proof was clearly on the defense to show cause for a new trial, and when cause was shown it was deemed inadequate. ) Understand, I'm not saying we should let everyone go because we know some are innocent, or that knowing some are innocent is the only reason for decent treatment, just that knowing we will inevitably have a variable number of innocent convicts underscores the importance of treating them humanely (but not like they won a multi-year resort vacation. )

I strongly agree with your view of the penal system, but I don't believe our view is even remotely common. I only value punishment where it aids reform, but the very name of the "PENAL system" implies penalties have value in themselves. Further, because capital punishment is reserved for the most heinous crimes we often see it defended on the grounds that victims families deserve to know their Loved ones murderer is dead or something similar. I have reservations about how constructive feeding the desire for vengeance is, and that's the only peace I see death offering but permanent incarceration denying.