Put to death in some States in the US...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Perhaps we define 'serial killer' differently.

My definition would not apply to someone who kills people in a series of armed robberies for example. It would apply to someone who just murders people for no apparent reason. The first one benefits from his action, the latter does not and in my books is mentally insane (acting against his best interests and for no altruistic cause)

Fair enough.

I dont see why holding the jury accountable is unjust. They are there to review the evidence and their validity. As you very well say evidence might be lacking. Consequently, with inadequate evidence, the logical thing is to acquit or err on the side of caution. A jury that decides to put a person to death on inadequate evidence makes an informed decision and should be held accountable for their actions. Of course if let us say evidence was tampered or mishandled by police then the jury was mislead and the onus should go to the law enforcement.

Perhaps it is different in Greece, but here juries are composed of citizens selected for that purpose. To hold them accountable for the quality of evidence would, at a stroke, remove the jury system because no-one would agree to serve in fear of that penalty.

A jury cannot be held accountable for inadequate evidence, for they have no responsibilty for its gathering or quality. If as you say, they should acquit if they cannot be certain, then I suggest all cases would result in acquittal because there is no way a jury can guarantee the accuracy of the evidence presented - they are not scientists, or lawyers, or witnesses.

Finally, in the case presented in the OP, no-one had even considered DNA as a possible corroboration to confessional evidence because the technique did not exist. Your view therefore, is that the jury should be punished for not taking into account the findings from a technique that was not invented for another ten years?

Not exactly what I would call just. Would you?