64 Comments - Ray del Camino - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:09 am: Yes. It doesn’t deter crime, it costs more than life in prison, and it doesn’t bring back the dead. - dave - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:10 am: Absolutely. The death penalty has been proven to cost way too much money, but even worse, it has been shown to be given out based on both one’s race and economic situation, and to be greatly flawed in its ability to be to be given out to be people who are actually guilty. Further, there is no evidence that actually has any deterrent affect. And that doesn’t even get into the many moral arguments against the death penalty. Abolish it now! - eastsider - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:10 am: Yes. If one innocent person is killed, then the whole process has failed, and we shouldn’t take the risk. I’d much rather see a murderer spend the rest of his/her life suffering behind bars, knowing that they will never see the free world again. Also, I hate seeing our resources wasted on decades of lengthy appeals. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:12 am: ==Yes. It doesn’t deter crime, it costs more than life in prison, and it doesn’t bring back the dead.== I could not have put it better. - in the know - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:15 am: flabbergasted. The very group that ignores the numerous changes put in place since the “moratorium” which has supported the continuance of the moratorium, now cites the moratorium as proof that the system is broken? How about this, name one case SINCE the reforms were implemented that is questionable. Fewer death penalty cases, no reversals for errors, far greater resources for defendants and better trained advocates. Tell me how THAT is broken. If these advocates will guarantee that they will never propose early release, compassionate release or anything other than a defendant dying in jail AND won’t oppose permanent segregation for those who murder other inmates or guards? If so, then lets talk. Since they won’t, there are some among us who’ve voided their social contract to live among us….. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:16 am: I can go along with the abolition of the death penalty as long as we have an ironclad system in place to make sure that the guilty never leave the prison system. - Ghost - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:16 am: Yes, it is not cost effective and is less of a detterent then life in prison without parole. We can build prisons with the money we spend on inmates sentenced to the death penalty. Additional these inamtes enjoy large privat cells, extra privileges such as extra meal trays etc. Put them in general population in shared cells, no extra storage, law library or visists etc. usethe money saved to build modern prisons to replace our decaying system. - Thoughts... - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:19 am: Yes. It is not a deterrant. It costs significantly more than life in prison. It’s a flawed process and too many innocents have been caught in that net. Moreover, race and economic factors shouldn’t be factors in determining guilt, innocence or sentence, but in this case, they are. But this is the most important reason - it’s morally wrong. - dupage dan - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:21 am: Polls indicate that many folk want the death penalty but when these same people are asked about the death penalty in the face of an absolute “life without parole” provision the support for the death penalty drops way below 50%. I don’t think money should be a consideration when justice is concerned but the cost of long appeals processes outweighs the cost of life in prison. I know for myself that I would wish the death penalty on someone who had commited a monstrous crime against a close relative of mine. I don’t believe, however, that that should be the function of a civilized society, however. Many folk were outraged at seeing the video of Richard Speck in prison apparently enjoying himself. The reality of long prison stretches doesn’t bear that idea out, however. And even that doesn’t matter. Society should be protected from the most dangerous of its’ members. Life without parole accomplishes that without the potential of executing an innocent person, a prospect that horrifies me, as it should everyone. - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:24 am: I’m not against the death penalty in theory, but in practice, you can’t guarantee against mistakes. Life in prison without parole works for me. - Knome Sane - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:26 am: Yes, I think it should be abolished. And I have always wondered why “pro-lifers” were pro-capital punishment. Is “life” sacred or is it not? - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:27 am: Yes, what Wordslinger said. - D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:27 am: Like Arendt’s Banality of Evil, the whole death penalty machinery has become banal. Harry Blackmun said he was done tinkering w/ the mechanisms of death, so too, the whole death penalty jurisprudence has become the banality of triviality that has lost any penal purpose–does this mixture of drugs kill humanely; was this appeal filed timely; should the state court justice have kept the clerk’s office open past closing time; the judge and the prosecutor were sleeping together. These are all issues in real cases. Even more tragic, the father executed for the death of his children by arson when the state’s experts were subsequently proven to know nothing about arson and testified based on old wives tales. Death penalty is now only about revenge, is too expensive, time consuming and diminishes all of us. Abolition is the only alternative. - MikeMacD - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:29 am: Yes, it should be abolished for the many reasons already cited. Also, it’s my personal belief that that it’s bad public policy for the state to unnecessarily kill people. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:30 am: Yes, get rid of it, for all of the reasons listed above. And as a bleeding heart I’ll go along with life w/o parole for murder one. - McHenry Mike - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:31 am: I personally know one of the people who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his parents on their farm. His conviction was reversed on appeal due to errors by the judge during the trial. In the meantime, the real killer bragged about getting away with the crime to someone in a bar. The person he bragged to was later arrested for something and offered up the barroom confession to make a deal. The real murderer was then arrested by the Feds and confessed, leading to the release of the man who had been wrongfully convicted. If this had turned out a bit different or the timing hadn’t been the same, the wrong man could have been executed. - obamalac - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:41 am: Abolish it because we are supposed to be a civilized society! - Jake from Elwood - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:42 am: Simply put, I do not like my government in the killing business. - Greg B. - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:46 am: I’m not an absolutist on the issue. There are instances where the death penalty needs to be applied. Even John Paul II recognized this as such. I believe that it is a govt. program run by elected officials in this state. I think the most dangerous place to be in America is between an elected prosecutor and the needle. If the state can’t safely hold someone for life (he/she has proven that they’ll kill more even if imprisoned) or the state is threatened (terrorism, treason) than yes. I think we’re safe with most others locked away w/no chance of getting out an that suffices if the goal is to protect society. - Xgman - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:56 am: No. Since a Governor takes an oath to faithfully implement the laws of the State of Illinois, there is no legal authority for the moratorium. I prosecuted several cases in which armed robbers told me that they didn’t just kill their victims ( and eliminate the witnesses) because they feared the death penalty. So innocent lives are saved. And we have 40,000 innocent lives taken each year by auto accidents, yet no one wants to ban cars! - Aldyth - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:58 am: Until our criminal justice system can achieve a state of perfection where no innocent person is convicted, we need to abolish it. The death penalty is tough to reverse once applied and “Oops, we’re sorry” doesn’t cut it. - Justice - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:03 pm: Abolish the death penalty. Trusting the accuracy, integrity, and thoroughness of our legal system is a stretch in itself. Combine that with grossly overloaded Public Defenders and the court system, and wrongful convictions are bound to happen. The system is woefully broke and like others posting here have said, it isn’t a deterrent, and it won’t bring back the dead. - Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:03 pm: Xgman, Are you really equating car ACCIDENTS to the state, on purpose, injecting chemicals into somebody until they die? You really believe the two are in any way related? - dave - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:05 pm: And we have 40,000 innocent lives taken each year by auto accidents, yet no one wants to ban cars! You are a lawyer, and use logic like this? Wow. - Dead Head - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:11 pm: Absolutely, without a doubt should have been done years ago. The cost to take a life is more than to keep the criminal locked up forever. Not to mention, by the State doing the executing, it puts blood on ALL our hands. One crime doesn’t justify another. - dave - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:26 pm: No. Since a Governor takes an oath to faithfully implement the laws of the State of Illinois, there is no legal authority for the moratorium. BTW, Xgman - this doesn’t answer the question. The question isn’t should the moratorium continue. It is should the death penalty be abolished? - Downstate - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:27 pm: The death penalty should be maintained. It is a deterrent and it exists to protect society, even if it is simply our correctional workers. It should be used sparingly, but it should be used. - quicknote - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:28 pm: Yes. It’s barbaric. It puts us in bad company… Iran, Iraq, China, and Texas just to name a few. And IMHO it’s just plain spooky that a government, any government can be given the power to kill a human being. - Responsa - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:28 pm: Very much in favor of abolishing it as a “penalty” for the reasons given above. But, only if there is on the books an airtight category of crime and convicted criminal that demarks and stigmatizes certain crimes, and is something that prosecutors can be absolutely certain will keep these people off the streets FOREVER. I refer to crimes against society so horrible and heinous that society (through the state) would traditionally be well within its bounds to apply death–but chooses not to. Those crimes should automatically warrant mandatory life without parole-no exceptions short of exoneration. The Manson family Tate-LaBianca killers who were initially sentenced to death but spared due to California’s end of the death penalty, and who now regularly come up for parole, is the type of loophole that would need to be closed tight when Illinois abolishes the DP. Also, in the rare case that criminals convicted for the specific sorts of crimes mentioned above might request, and prefer, death instead of life without parole, they should be granted that option without having to be submitted to years and years of appeals “on their behalf” and myriad demaning tests to weigh their sanity. Some criminals do have a conscience and simply do not want to go on living when they come to terms with what they have done. - MikeMacD - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:36 pm: “Iran, Iraq, China, and Texas” :) - Say WHAT? - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:36 pm: No, the death penalty should not be abolished. It should be implemented the way it was meant to be. It got screwed it up with political theatrics and overly eager prosecutors and or Sheriffs going after the wrong people to show their ability to get the “bad guys” off the street for the sole purpose in many cases of getting themselves re-elected. Then special interest groups claim its not working? Find a way to fix the system, and protect it from abuses, not dismantle it. - Pat collins - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:40 pm: It’s very funny when the group that is responsible for making it take long, be expensive then claims that its too expensive, and doesn’t deter. There can be reasonable safeguards (after all, such were why those were released) and still have it be a deterrent by having it applied in a time reasonably close to the crime. Its not impossible, or impossibly expensive. It just takes some will power. Why prolife Can you say “Cardinal Bernardin “? But others would say “on one hand you have a criminal convicted of a serious and heinous crime. On the other you have a baby”. There might be some difference between the two. - Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:41 pm: Interesting post, Say What. Apparently “People who don’t like to see innocent people put to death by the state” and “People who think we should not have the same record of human right as those in China and North Korea” are now “Special Interests.” - Bill - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:43 pm: Yes and cops like xgman and over zealous prosecutors who are motivated by things other than justice are the reasons why. - Secret Square - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:50 pm: I say yes, it’s just not worth the risk or expense anymore. Also, the “loopholes” that once allowed or required people with life sentences to have regular parole hearings were closed in Illinois (and other states) years ago with changes in parole and sentencing laws. Although there are still inmates that were sentenced to “life” back in the 1960s and early ’70s receiving regular parole hearings, their numbers are dwindling every year, and persons who commit such crimes today do NOT receive the same treatment. - Xgman - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:51 pm: No, the point is that as a society we knowingly tolerate deaths of innocent people all the time, for the ‘greater good’ if you will. The death penalty saves far more innocent lives than it could ever take. That should be the debate. And without the death penalty, what is the deterrent to a felon killing the witnesses to an armed robbery,or to a brutal rape, which crimes already now carry a life sentence? What is the deterrent to a life-sentence inmate killing a prison guard or another inmate? One last point: it is equally unacceptable to me if an innocent person is wrongly sentenced to life in prison, or to any long term. So if the system is not perfect, let’s just do away with the whole criminal justice system. No, death penalty opponents are naive when they make the arguments they always do. - Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 12:52 pm: I am not in favor of abolishing the death penaly, so long as we continue with a moratorium until the system is modified so that the probability of an erroneous verdict is eliminated. Eg., need at least two eyewitnesses, no death penalty based on circumstantial evidence, provide private attorneys and consultants at competitive rates to indigent defendants, closely controlled videotaping of confessions, more strict requirements for jurors on capital cases, etc. Maybe we should consider another process for capital cases. Also, I would consider expansion of the death penalty to crimes whose perpetrators maybe would be deterred by possibility of execution. Fiscal sociopaths like Bernie Madoff come to mind. He may not have literally murdered anyone, but he destroyed them nonetheless. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:01 pm: I have supported capital punishment in the past and believe that it has a deterrent value. The absence of the death penalty seems to embolden some criminals. The trouble is that it serves little purpose for an execution to be delayed for fifteen to twenty years before the sentence is carried out after millions of dollars have been expended on lengthy and, sometimes, appeals. If Illinois is not going to lift the moratorium and resume executions, capital punishment may as well be abolished rather than maintaining the farcical practice of prosecutors seeking the death penalty for criminals when the sentence is largely meaningless. - dave - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:02 pm: There might be some difference between the two. It disgusts me when so-called “pro-life” people claim that there is a difference between innocent and guilty life. Life is either valuable or not. Period. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:05 pm: CORRECTION: I have supported capital punishment in the past and believe that it has a deterrent value. The absence of the death penalty seems to embolden some criminals. The trouble is that it serves little purpose for an execution to be delayed for fifteen to twenty years before the sentence is carried out after millions of dollars have been expended on lengthy and, sometimes, frivolous appeals. If Illinois is not going to lift the moratorium and resume executions promptly, capital punishment may as well be abolished rather than maintaining the farcical practice of prosecutors seeking the death penalty for criminals when in actuality the sentence is largely meaningless. Opponents of the death penalty may not have succeeded in shifting public opinion away from support for capital punishment, but their alternate goal of making the death penalty too expensive to be enforced due to protracted appeals was highly successful. - dave - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:07 pm: death penalty opponents are naive when they make the arguments they always do. Okay… first, you made the argument that we shouldn’t abolish the death penalty because we don’t abolish cars. Then you say that we are naive. Second, I agree that is is also unacceptable to wrongly sentence someone to a life sentence, or any sentence for that matter. But there are certain things (like killing someone) that are irreversible. You can reverse pretty much any wrongful sentence that doesn’t involve death or physical abuse/torture. Third, you continue to refer to the deterrent effect of the death penalty, but there is NO evidence showing that there is such a deterrent effect. - Xgman - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:27 pm: No evidence??? I’ve had numerous criminals tell me that they didn’t kill their victims/witnesses because they didn’t want to ‘ride the lightning’. That is evidence. Talk to former prosecutors, policemen, prison guards, and you will hear of similar ‘evidence’. Surveys undertaken by anti-death penalty groups purporting to show no deterrence are flawed - how does one ever show statistically that a murder was not committed due to the death penalty? But there is anecdotal evidence. I once spoke to the family of a beautiful young daughter who was brutally raped, tortured, and then killed by a paroled ‘lifer’, and the thought of the killer sitting in a cell, being fed and clothed, getting free medical care, and periodically filing for free damage lawsuits against the state, for the rest of his life, while this family had been destroyed by him, was continuing torture for these people. He should have gotten the death penalty; there was no doubt about his guilt. So not imposing the death penalty has consequences too. I’m done. - Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:37 pm: Interesting X. Numerous studies lie, but bad guys talking to the prosecutors tell the truth? I would have suspected the exact oppposite. Live and learn. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:48 pm: Back in the day, they hung pickpockets…and pickpockets would work the crowds watching the hanging. Simply put: It does not deter crime. - Amalia - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 1:48 pm: No. why is easy. John Wayne Gacy. Richard Speck. Osama Bin Laden. Ted Bundy. spend some time actually reading the cases of these and more and not the diatribes of those who think that no one deserves to die for their crimes. actually read the cases of all of those men who were let off of death row by George Ryan. read what Dick Devine wrote to plead for a case by case review. it will make you weep. the victims of murderers do not deserve a government that cares more about criminals than those they victimize. you have to have a penalty because evil does exist and must be stopped, cold and dead. - zzzzzz - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 2:06 pm: I have never heard Arendt’s argument used in the death penalty debate. Bravo, D.P. Gumby. - Say WHAT? - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 2:14 pm: Skeeter, There are groups with paid staff pushing to abolish. I am not aware of groups with paid staff in support of continuing the death penalty. I’m not saying there is no lobbyist for this group, just none that I am personally aware of. - Say WHAT? - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 2:19 pm: Honest Abe, Bravo on your corrected post! - Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 2:20 pm: Interesting. So, if people want to do something, then they are “special interests.” By that logic, if Chicago residents who want better schools hire somebody to lobby, then they go from “concerned parents” to “special interest”? Anybody who tries to get something done in Springfield is a special interest? That’s a broad definition. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 2:21 pm: Let’s stick to the question, please. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 2:56 pm: Yes. Abolish it. @Amalia, I hear you, but you sound like you want revenge against these heinous people. The state shouldn’t be in the revenge business. @Greg B, I don’t think the Pope said what you claim he said. This is from the US Conf. of Bishops, and sums it up nicely: 1. The sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity. 2. State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us. 3. Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed. 4. We have other ways to punish criminals and protect society. http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/cappunish/index.shtml#church_docs - Ahoy - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 2:57 pm: I think Ron White had the best commentary on the death penalty, “If you kill someone in Texas, we will kill you back.” The death penalty should not be abolished, but it should not be used carelessly. - Ghost - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 3:54 pm: === The absence of the death penalty seems to embolden some criminals. ==== In my experience you have the opposite effect. I am aware of criminals who were not concerned about the death penalty, they didnt want to be lockedin a cage forever. I have observed criminals asking that they recieve the death penalty. Most crimes we punish with death are driven by emotion (so the peron is not thinking or moved by the difference betwen death and life in prison) or sociopaths unconcered if they are killed or executed, but fear being maginalized and dropped in a cell for the rest of their lives. - Third Generation Chicago Native - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 4:19 pm: Yes, abolish it. Too many innocent people are in jail already look at the two fathers who were accused of killing their daughters, one downstate and the other up north, both were cleared on DNA evidence. - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 4:20 pm: –The death penalty should not be abolished, but it should not be used carelessly. – Way to go out on a limb. I’m all against careless application as well. This ain’t Texas. - in the know - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 4:22 pm: Dave, are you aware of all of the changes that have taken place since the situation which precipitated the “moratorium”? They are many and significant, including President Obama’s legislation mandating interrogations. Simply stated, the concerns are based on out of date facts. - formerGOPer - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 4:29 pm: I’ve always supported the death penalty but as mentioned in other posts the realities of the way it is implemented have made for an unworkable system. I still have two concerns that would have to be addressed before I would change my mind. The first has already been mentioned about the “no possibility of parole” being ironclad. Many of the same people who are now working against the death penalty will come around again when a convicted killer is old or sick and plead for release on compassinate grounds. My proposal would be to refer such a request to the Legislature with a super majority of both houses. Anyone who could get that would deserve release since it would be near impossible. The second is something corrections officers might comment on with more authority but I’m concerned about the safety of other inmates and corrections officers if there can be no higher level of punishment. In sum, I would propose keeping the death penalty intact but immediately suspending the sentence. This way if a murderer kills again while in prison or escapes and is caught the death penalty could be carried out. - state worker II - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 5:25 pm: Former Senator Obama certainly did pass the video-taping interrogations several years ago however the question is even though the bill was passed has Illinois had the $$ to implement? The state police were a bit slack on implementing due to budget concers. - state worker II - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 5:29 pm: Anyway, abolish it. Does not deter crime and the state should not be in the business of executing its citizens. Life without possbility of parole will suffice, save some money that could be used to aid victims of these aweful crimes. - Bigtwich - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 5:58 pm: Abolish it. It is arbitrary and capricious. I expect this is an anti death penalty site but it came up in my search and the numbers seem to match other sources that do not reach conclusions. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state They say “For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3″ per 100,000 population. They list Illinois as having the death penalty. Of more local interest they state the murder rate in Illinois was 8.4 for 1998 and 6.1 for 2008. Applying the death penalty in all cases would have Illinois 787 people eligible for the death penalty from 2008. If my math is right. Texas was 6.8 for 1998 and 5.6 for 2008. Nationally the numbers were 6.3 for 1998 and 5.4 for 2008. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 10:54 pm: Xgman–and let God sort them out? - Amalia - Thursday, Sep 9, 10 @ 11:09 pm: Dear 47th: it’s not revenge, it’s justice. - Tom B - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 7:32 am: Abolish the death penalty. According to a report by Hands Off Cain, an Italian organization focused on the global use of capital punishment, three “liberal democratic” governments executed human beings in 2009: The U.S.A., with 52 executions, Japan, with 7 executions and Botswana with one execution. By contrast, China had the most executions in 2009, with approximately 5,000. Iran and Iraq placed second and third in judicial executions with approximately 402 and 77 people put to death. The only European country that still has the death penalty on the books is Belarus. The death penalty is not about justice, it is about the ability to exert power. In this case deadly force, when clearly there are alternatives, such as life in prison. - dupage dan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 9:16 am: I just read an article in Mother Tribune about a convict who participated in a bank robbery in 1967 in Northlake during which 2 police officers were murdered. The 3 monsters who commited this crime were also implicated in the wounding of 2 other police officers in Ohio a few weeks before. One of the monsters was recently paroled without any folk from the Northlake police dept even being told such a thing was pending. After much outrage, the federal parole board is “reconsidering” its’ decision. While it is unlikley the current action will result in the release of the second monster (the third monster died in prison) it highlights one of the reasons why many wish to rely on the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. I can’t think of one more monstrous than the murder of a police officer. Yet these monsters, all of whom were sentenced to 199 years in prison, could be released one day. People don’t want some parole board to wipe out the intent of the court/jury to have these monsters behind bars. It really shouldn’t matter how well they have been rehabilitated in these kinds of circumstances. There has to be some threshold beyond which people forfeit the right to live in our society, in perpetuity, no matter how much good they do in prison, no matter how much remorse they display, no matter how old they may be. Without that, there will be many who will fight for the death penalty, me included. It is not a matter of deterence. It is a matter of justice. If we can be assured that “life without parole” means just that, then we can dispense with the death penalty, IMO. No exceptions, please. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.