25 Comments - Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:38 am: yes. First, the cost of death penalty cases far exceeds the cost of imprisoning somone for life, many times over. Death panlty inmates in prison get larger cells, extra amennities etc. Death penalty inmates filed suits after the moritorium because they lost these benefits which put them in better living conditions then the general inmate population. Then there is the very high legal cost for all of the appeals; providing legal resources and covering the costs for the inamte as well as the State. Add in that we can not reverse a mistake; problems with qualified public defenders; and that it takes so long to carry out the penalty that there is no real detterent effect. No real advantage to keeping it in place. - Dr. Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:52 am: Sure we should abolish the death penalty. It seems obvious. We are civilized, so we shouldn’t have a death penalty. However, why is the ISBA taking a position on this issue? If I didn’t need to be an ISBA member because of some other matters (insurance, etc.), I would cancel my membership. The ISBA should be doing things like promoting ethics and civility, and should stay far away from contested political issues. - Been There - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:54 am: Yes. And I think Carey’s quote says it all: To do otherwise would invite the grossest miscarriage of justice imaginable, the death of an innocent person.” Enough said in my book. - anon - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:13 pm: I am in agreement with previous posters. Yes it should be abolished. The possibility that the death penalty serves as a disincentive to crime is greatly offset by the probability that the government will kill an innocent person. I identify with the families of murder victims. Their pain is immeasurable and their loved ones can never return. However, think of the horror of having a loved one accused of a crime he/she didnt commit and sentenced to death. Life in prison should be the harshest sentence available. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:25 pm: Yes and this sums it up: The application of the death penalty in Illinois has been demonstrated to be flawed beyond any doubt. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:27 pm: Yes. Human life is precious. Societies that crown human life as the most precious right within it benefit from a citizenry enlightened to it’s value. It is unsafe for citizens to empower their government to knowingly end life based on changing legal processes and definitions. My position on the death penalty is similar to questions about when life begins and ends. When we do not know, then we should err on the side of life and liberty. Human and medical ignorance is too widespread to justify the ending of any human life. - BandCamp - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:31 pm: I agree that the death penalty is flawed…but so are a number of other laws. Having said all that, I would lean to agreeing with the pevious posts in support of abolishing the law. I will say this in defense of the dealth penalty: If I were to have one of my daughters murdered, and it was clear cut who committed the murder, I would want an eye for an eye; no doubt in my mind. To know the person who killed my daughter was sitting in prison, eating on my dime, etc…that would be beyond hard. It is a very complicated and loaded issue. - Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:31 pm: Yes it should. Not that long ago we didn’t know about DNA evidence….if we kill someone now and ‘futuristic’ evidence could prove them innocent, its too late. Plus, the death penalty is not a deterrent to criminals. But, I would like to see some wiggle room for those convicted who would rather die than spend the rest of their life in prison…. - Fiscally and Socially Responsible - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:34 pm: Yes - easy sell — it doesn’t deter crime - it costs to much - - cermak_rd - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:42 pm: I would either like to see it ended, or all the blue ribbon commission recommendations put into place to mitigate the possibility of the state executing an innocent person. A way to vastly reduce the use of the death penalty would be to stop the practice of death penalty qualifying juries. Yes, this rids the jury of people with reservations about the death penalty, but it also creates a jury that skews toward the prosecution (according to the research I’ve read). - Heartless Libertarian - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:35 pm: The death penalty is flawed. You know why it is flawed? It is not efficient. You sit in jail for years and years. What’s the point? You can kill police officers and families, and then you have the right to live with free food, shelter… for years. Corporal punishment, capital punishment… all for the better. You pay for your crime, and you pay as soon as possible. Secondly, it is very wierd that the state bar association would come out against the death penalty… I thought that the death penalty made them a bunch of money? I guess not that much. - Jake from Elwood - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:39 pm: Count me among those who do not like their government in the killing business. Put them in a cell with few rights for the rest of their lives. - yinn - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:53 pm: Heartless, the thought of making the death penalty “efficient” makes me shudder, especially in combination with the knowledge of how badly the government can mess up other stuff. BandCamp, I think the desire to rip someone to pieces for a crime committed against a family member is very different from more generally supporting killing by the state. I made the decision to oppose capital punishment when I attending demonstrations preceding an execution outside the prison in Michigan City. That would have been about ‘80 give or take. The differences between the pro-killing and anti-killing groups when it came to attitude and behavior were HUGE. I asked myself which group I wanted to be associated with. End of story. - Belle - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:57 pm: No, they should put in an express lane like Texas did to get costs back under control. - Cranky Old Man - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:02 pm: I’d like to see it reinstated, but only in cases where there is NO question of guilt. Cases like Gacy, Dahmer and the like. Shouldn’t take too long to blow through those appeals IF the legal system uses any common sense. - BandCamp - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:12 pm: COM, that’s what’s at issue, the legal system. You can’t give one person an endless appeal process and another the needle just because he’s dead-to-rights guilty. For the legal system to work (more) effectively, it must be applied equally to all who use it. So in dealing with the death penalty, either you keep it and (possibly) kill an innocent person as part of making the system work, or you err on the side of making sure no one is killed for a crime they didn’t commit. I tend to agree with making sure sure an innocent person isn’t executed. - PhilCollins - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:33 pm: Yes, it should be reinstated. Everyone who is convicted of first-degree murder should be executed the same way that he or she killed his or her victim(s). I don’t care whether the death penalty is a deterrent. I think that no one who purposely took a life should keep his or her life. - Little Egypt - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:40 pm: OK, I’ll try it again. Yes, the death penalty should be reinstated, when it is clear cut, proved beyond a resonable doubt with irrefutable evidence - especially if it’s one of my previous loved ones who have been killed. I’d even help. - Little Egypt - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:44 pm: “precious” loved ones. Of course, I do have a couple of “previous” loved ones as well. - L-Ron - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 4:16 pm: What former prosecutor and current circuit judge in Cook County made the following comment: “The occasional execution of an innocent man is the price you pay for an effective death penalty system”? - Excessively rabid - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 4:28 pm: A state so fouled up that it can’t successfully repair, for example, the Lincoln-Herndon law office without making a big deal of it has no business executing anybody. I’m not strongly for or against the death penalty, but if you’re going to have one, it needs to be administered by competent, conscientious people. Those are in short supply right now. “Sorry, we can’t afford the rest of your lethal injection - the Governor just called and cut the funds.” - downhereforyears - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 6:01 pm: Then fix the flaws….DO NOT ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY. John Wayne Gacy and the Browns Chicken murderers deserve the utmost penalty this society can levy. Once again if there are flaws FIX THEM…. and quit using them as an excuse because you don’t suppoert the dath penalty. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 6:12 pm: ===Then fix the flaws=== A system based on human beings will always have flaws. They can’t be completely fixed because humans cannot be flawless. You’re suggestion is absolutely impossible. - Bookworm - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 7:43 pm: The Supreme Court opinion quoted in the article was issued in 1998 and concerned a murder case from 1993 in which a woman and her 3-year-old daughter were found dead in their burning apartment. Apparently the defense raised some questions about inconclusive DNA evidence and other findings that might have pointed to another suspect. However, I do believe DNA testing and other aspects of forensic science have advanced considerably in the last 15 years, which have decreased the odds of someone being wrongly convicted. Also, since the moratorium and all the attention to wrongful convictions in the intervening years, the death penalty is less frequently invoked, further decreasing the odds of a mistake. There’s no question in my mind that murderers, particularly serial killers, deserve the death penalty; but given the extreme expense and time involved in the appeals process, plus the possibility of mistakes or cover-ups being made by overzealous prosecutors, I would have to come down in favor of abolition. I must add that the Cap Fax commenters on this subject seem much more level-headed than the people over on the Chicago Tribune blog, who, if they had their druthers, would have already shot (or better yet, beat to death with a blunt instrument) the guy who went on the rampage last week. - DOC employee - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:02 pm: The death penalty is the only deterrent to keep an inmate doing 40 or 50 or 60 or more years in prison from assaulting (or worse) staff and other inmates every chance they get. I remember when C/O Kush was killed in Stateville in 1989. I was in the Academy then. One of his killers spent a short time in a medium security facility after his murder conviction from the Kush case. Why? Because the three who killed C/O Kush got life, not death, as they should have. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.