Question of the day
Friday, Sep 11, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the BND…
Fed up with mass shootings and the recent violence against law enforcement officers, state Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, announced Thursday he would file legislation to restore the death penalty in extremely violent cases.
“As a former state’s attorney, I understand the complexities of seeking the death penalty for individuals who have committed heinous crimes,” said Haine. “I have been shocked and appalled by the recent killings we have seen in churches and of police officers. The reality is there are some crimes in which the death penalty should be an option for a jury of our citizens to consider.”
He added, “Those who take the life of officers, or engage in mass killings, need to face the appropriate consequences.”
The legislation would restore the death penalty as a sentence option for those convicted of serial killings, heinous murders of a child, of an elderly person or of a person with a disability, murders of crime witnesses, correctional officers and law enforcement officials, the statement said.
* The Question: Do you support a limited restoration of the death penalty? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
customer survey
- Norseman - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:36 pm:
No. I was a supporter of the death penalty, but now that it’s been abolished I don’t see the point of spending the money and time to reinstate the mechanisms for a limited number of executions that will not take place for a decade. Time to move on.
- Amalia - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:37 pm:
death row should never have been emptied in a blanket way in the first place. it was an insult to the justice system, which considers each case on the merits of that case, and that case alone.
which is why the death penalty should exist. some cases are so horrible that they warrant it. the option should exist.
- Gruntled University Employee - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
I voted no. I don’t believe that it’s a deterrent, the only thing it accomplishes is a sense of vengeance for some of the public. Plus it’s much more expensive than life in prison.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/
- Anon - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Troy_Sheley
Everyone touched by this case is hoping Missouri does what Illinois can’t/won’t
- Homer J. Quinn - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:41 pm:
no. it makes no sense for the state to punish murderers by murdering them.
- Bird Dog - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
I voted no. The criminal justice system has not been fixed. The Innocence Project continues to find and free improperly convicted people.
- Chicago Cynic - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
What Norseman and Gruntled said…exactly.
- Capitol View - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
I’m a liberal, but I do have a sense of justice. And I have no better option for mass killers, jerks who look for law enforcement officers to kill, or terrorists. There is a place for the death penalty, carefully applied.
- AC - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:44 pm:
Voted No, not a believer that past abuses exposed by the innocence project project wouldn’t be repeated especially with the officer provision, because smaller cases have greater uncertainty. If it were limited to mass killings there’d be less doubt as to the guilt of the individual and I’d probably support it, even though it’s an ineffective deterrent.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:45 pm:
Yes… Always thought the point of incarceration was to punish and rehabilitate individuals who break the law. People who shoot up churches and movie theaters, do horrendous things to children, and kill on a mass scale are among the most despicable people in the human race. They cannot be rehabilitated, are a danger to corrections officers, and have lost their right to live.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:46 pm:
Yes - but only if we could efficiently operate a death row facility or wing.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:46 pm:
No - I’d like to vote yes and I don’t demand a –failsafe– system to prevent executing an innocent person, but the system is way too far to correct it anytime soon (especially with our budget deficit). If this means some heinous criminals with video proof of their crimes get life, so be it.
- Blue dog dem - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
Do I need to tell you how I voted?
- Tommy - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:48 pm:
No. I’m a former supporter of the death penalty, but came to the realization it just doesn’t work. Illinois released more death row inmates (who were wrongly convicted) than we actually executed.
And, besides, Haine’s proposal doesn’t seem so “limited.”
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:48 pm:
I frankly think life in prison is a worse fate than death. Death can be a mercy. I used to be for capital punishment but the horror of prison (from what I understand) is far worse I feel.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
(That said, George Ryan’s absoulte worst moment was when he forced the survivors of murder victims to make agonizing testimony when he had made his mind up long ago, then not even inform those survivors of his decision to commute all death penalty sentences until he announced it in a festive atmosphere to the adoring cheers of a crowd of law students. Michael Sneed’s endless shilling for him earns her disdain as well).
- walker - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:51 pm:
We never got this process right when we had it. Too many open and hidden institutional barriers to apply this ultimate justice fairly. So, no.
- Joe M - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:52 pm:
I voted no. First, I don’t feel anyone has the right to take the life of another person, execpt in self-defence or if they are called to war. And even with war, I feel that people should have the right to be conscientious objectors. I’ve also always felt that executing someone with the death penalty is cold blooded and puts us as a society on the same level as person accused and convicted of committing a murder. And thirdly, there have been a number of instances where those on death row were later found to be innocent.
- PolPal56 - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
No. Once someone has been imprisoned, we do not need to put them to death to secure the safety of society. I do not wish to be a party to state sanctioned killing, just as I do not wish to be a party to abortions. I believe it is wrong to take human life unless in the protection of your own or someone else’s life. I happen to be more consistent in my view of the value of human life than most liberals or conservatives. I do not understand how people can be for one (death penalty or abortion) and against the other.
- Niblets - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
Do not wish to give government that power.
- DeKalb Guy - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:55 pm:
A person killed by the state who is later found innocent cannot be restored to life. So, no.
- Ben Franklin - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
As my friends wrote in 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” and all men must equally die. Murder is a crime against the least of our own in equal portion as the murder of boys in blue.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
Bring it back!
Can draft the reinstatement so that eye witness testimony alone is insufficient to convict unless there is a prior relationship between the witness and defendant, or can raise the burden of proof to beyond any doubt. Require video taping of the entire interrogation as well as any confession too.
- Calhoun Native - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
I voted no. As we used to say in the 60s, why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?
- JS Mill - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
Yes. I am only slightly in the yes column. I am so tired of all of the shootings and the belief that there are some crimes so heinous that the death penalty is warranted.
- Hatless - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
I just read the book “Anatomy of Injustice”, which details a case of an innocent man who spent 20+ years on death row. The case was in South Carolina, but it shows how flawed the system is. I don’t shed any tears when a John Wayne Gacy dies, but I don’t believe the State is perfect enough to determine life and death.
- Lawdawg - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
I don’t believe the death penalty is a deterrent. Bad people will do bad things, regardless of punishment. Good people who do stupid things are not concerned about punishment when they do it. That being said, if a correctional officer is killed by an inmate at Menard by someone doing life, there is no punishment. Life sentence on life sentence. That does nothing for the family of the victim. Death penalty won’t bring the loved one back, but there has to be consequences for the ultimate crime of taking someone’s life. Especially a correctional officer whom just wants to to his/her job and get home for the night. If they don’t get to come home, their family should see a punishment.
- Practikal - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 2:59 pm:
I voted no for the simple reason that capital punishment is more expensive and irreversible in the rare circumstances of wrongful conviction. That being said, there should be enhanced penalties for crimes against children, the elderly and public safety officers.
- Not quite a majority - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:00 pm:
No. Death penalty does nothing but cause another death. It doesn’t bring ‘closure’, it doesn’t bring anyone back and it often murders the innocent. It’s an overly expensive nod to forces that want revenge. It was possibly the only part of G Ryan’s legacy that we should thank him for.
- MurMan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:01 pm:
I voted yes, but I would like to see an evidence requirement though for the death penalty.
Without:
* a written confession,
* DNA evidence,
* video/photo evidence of the crime,
* or two eye witnesses
I don’t think the death penalty should be an option. Too many circumstantial cases have been overturned by DNA and too many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted or even executed. We need a higher burden of proof on capital cases
- Concerned - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:01 pm:
No. It is not a deterrent. It is more expensive and less effective than life without parole. And we get it wrong WAY too often.
- D.P.Gumby - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:05 pm:
Not a deterrent and huge waste of resources.
- Out Here In The Middle - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:05 pm:
Voted no. I used to be firmly in the death penalty camp; however, I came to believe two things which changed my position. First, the death penalty is not a deterrent. No one sits down and rationally evaluates the potential outcomes of committing one of these crimes and then thinks “Oh, I might get the death penalty so I won’t do it.” It’s purely retribution. Second, there have been so many cases where death penalty convictions have been over turned — and clearly needed to be — that I cannot support putting that power into the hands of any prosecutor, judge, or jury.
- nona - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:06 pm:
Well stated, Concerned.
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:07 pm:
The failures of the past aren’t that far back that we can’t recall why it was abolished in the first place. While a long stretch in prison for an innocent person is a travesty of justice, the death penalty is forever. Prosecutors will always want to stretch the statute to include the crimes they are handling. Just human behavior.
Yes, there are heinous crimes that deserve the ultimate penalty. The cost or insuring that an innocent person doesn’t pay that penalty is far higher than the cost of housing that person for the balance of life on earth.
It certainly won’t deter terrorist who want to be sent to the virgins. It won’t deter the psychopaths of the world. It has not been shown to be an effective deterrent. Not even in cases where peace officers are involved.
The only concern I have is that a life w/out parole sentence should be just that - no parole. Otherwise, ignore the rest of what I wrote.
- Judgment Day - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:08 pm:
No. First off, the total costs involved with the use of the death penalty is completely out of line with whatever one would want to call ‘benefits’. It’s application is not efficient.
And I see a real potential for what I would describe as “mission creep”. You give most prosecutors an opening, they will use it to prove that they are ‘tough on crime’. Or to get a plea bargain.
IMO, the death penalty is just one more distraction (and ongoing expense) that Illinois doesn’t need, and bluntly, can’t afford.
- Sick & Tired - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
No. It’s taken innocent lives already, it’s much more costly than life in prison, and arguably serves as an easy way out for the felon.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:11 pm:
I think it’s bad for the human psyche to make a punishment out of an end we’re all facing anyway…
- Archiesmom - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:14 pm:
I voted no. It is not a deterrent to crime, it is a vehicle for vengeance. It is also expensive. In addition, the death penalty seems to fall disproportionately on minorities. Finally, and perhaps most important, juries are not infallible, and as we have seen, innocent people have been on death row and have been executed.
- Any Mouse - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:14 pm:
No. While I believe that some crimes clearly justify the death penalty morally, I haven;t seen any evidence that we can actually administer it using our imperfect institutions and human beings in a consistently reliably way.
As a practical matter, I haven’t seen any credible evidence that the existence of the death penalty reduces crime. Most murders are not committed by people who are skilled at long term planning.
- MurMan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:15 pm:
Why does it have to be about deterrent? It is about justice.
Capital crimes are so heinous that, when committed, that person forfeits his right to live.
It is not about what is more economical. It is not about taking a higher path. It is about what society feels is justice.
You can argue that these criminals have a right to live that the state can not take, or you can argue that all life is scared. That is a difference of opinion, but it is a minority opinion.
IL didn’t do away with capital punishment because we thought these criminals should live, we did it because we got way too many of these cases wrong.
- Jeep - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:17 pm:
I vote No. Although I do believe the death penalty can be warranted to protect society from those who will always pose a heinous threat to it, they just can’t find a way to administer it humanely. The death drugs are getting harder to procure, so states are “experimenting” with drug concoctions and lawmakers are proposing firing squads as alternative (firing squads are not an alternative) and as others point out it’s more expensive than life in prison.
- A guy - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:18 pm:
A vigorous NO. (some may be surprised by this) The death penalty is more expensive. It doesn’t truly offer closure for the senseless violence that would warrant it. Families are dragged into court over and over again to implement it. There’s a circus around executions which is morbid in its own right. It’s not a deterrent. Living without freedom in a confined space can be much worth than death.
And, we have a history of not even getting it right to begin with. Life without parole. No family should have to attend repeated parole hearings over years.
If we do make a mistake, it’s reversible. If we don’t, their lives are without a whit of value.
- MurMan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:20 pm:
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/national-polls-and-studies#gallup2014
Key excerpt:
59% said they favor the death penalty as the ultimate punishment for murder, while 35% said they are opposed.
- South of 64 - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:20 pm:
I voted no. We have seen that too many innocent people end up on death row. Where there is a particularly heinous crime committed, the pressure on law enforcement to find the criminal is too great to ensure a fair result. It is very costly to enforce the death penalty. Life imprisonment without parole is sufficient and permits innocent people to continue to pursue their pleas.
- illini - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:21 pm:
I voted NO, but this is a tough one. I lived in MadCo when Bill Haine was the States Attorney and I respect him.
The details of the exceptions would be very telling. And I have family that are ISP, and it does concern me.
Yet, to revert back to a time when a single prosecutor could single out one individual for a heinous crime troubles me. The Innocence Project has proven that mistakes are made and we need to be very careful.
- Guzzlepot - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:24 pm:
No. Let’s say we get it wrong in 1 out of 1000 death penalty cases and someone is wrongly convicted and executed. Would you buy a car that has a 1 in 1000 chance of blowing up every time you start it?
Of course, we sometimes get non death penalty cases wrong, but at least when we do in those cases we have a chance to further investigation. I don’t have an exact number but I do know that Illinois has found some defendants were wrongfully convicted and released from prison, and it has done that this year.
Finally, how can we afford it. Each death penalty case cost one to two million dollars on average. Can you imagine if we had a death penalty case and had to pay the expert witnesses with IOU’s.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:25 pm:
===It is about what society feels is justice.===
That’s an argument to allow lynch mobs. An eye for an eye is a pretty simplistic notion of justice, don’t you think?
- NoGifts - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:27 pm:
No because it doesn’t have a deterrent effect and the system sometimes convicts the wrong person.
- Gruntled University Employee - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:27 pm:
MurMan, When this administration is gutting and eliminating the programs designed to help the most vulnerable citizens of our society it darn well better be about the money.
- Nieva - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:27 pm:
Most of the folks on the no side would probably have a different opinion if one of their family members we murdered. I vote yes.
- JoanP - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:29 pm:
No. The fact is that those heinous crimes are the ones in which the police and prosecutors are most liable to use shortcuts leading to conviction of innocents.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:30 pm:
I voted no.
The death penalty winds up being more expensive to carry out due to the appeals process.
The existence of a death penalty places outside pressure on attorneys to seek it.
The state of Illinois has a very terrible history of convicting innocent black folks and putting them to death.
No public good is served by having the death penalty.
- Moby - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:31 pm:
So, let me get this straight. The legislation would re-instate the death penalty for the following situations?
*serial killings
*heinous murders of a child, of an elderly person or of a person with a disability
*murders of crime witnesses, correctional officers and law enforcement officials
But everything else wouldn’t qualify? Non-heinous murders of children and old people? What about middle-aged people? What about firefighters? What about doctors? What about single mothers? What about ME?
For some reason, I don’t think the qualifiers were thought through very well.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:36 pm:
Lot of consensus here - refreshing!
- Anon - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:38 pm:
Yes. This is how it should have been clarified before just dumping it all together. Evidence collection and verification are much better now than when many of the erroneous convictions occurred. It’s a tool prosecution needs to get bigger fish in some cases as well. A governor can still grant a stay.
- MurMan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:40 pm:
===That’s an argument to allow lynch mobs. An eye for an eye is a pretty simplistic notion of justice, don’t you think?===
That is a complete straw man, don’t you think? Comparing due process afforded by law, including appeals etc. to a lynch mob? No, you are right, they are pretty much the same thing.
Society makes laws and punishments for breaking those laws. That’s what I was referring to. Not some vigilante lynch mob.
- Nick Name - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:42 pm:
“I’m a liberal, but I do have a sense of justice. And I have no better option for mass killers, jerks who look for law enforcement officers to kill, or terrorists. There is a place for the death penalty, carefully applied.”
First, being a liberal is somehow incompatible with having a sense of justice?
Second, the rest of your comment demonstrates that supporters of the death penalty are more concerned with vengeance than with actual justice.
- Nick Name - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:43 pm:
I voted no. We’ve been without it now for a while and the sky hasn’t fallen. Restoring it only feeds people’s thirst for vengeance.
- Loki - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:44 pm:
Ben Franklin:
“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.”
- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906).
- MurMan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:48 pm:
convenient, not covenant. auto-correct got me
- MurMan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:50 pm:
===demonstrates that supporters of the death penalty are more concerned with vengeance than with actual justice.===
I am a supporter of the death penalty and I am more concerned about actual justice then I am about vengeance. So that would make you wrong
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:52 pm:
No. Been there done that.
System has too many loopholes to be accurate… See Lake County…
I would amend the penal code to pipe in a nonstop Abba soundtrack in the cells of the most heinous prisoners.
- IllinoisBoi - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:52 pm:
If I trusted the criminal justice system to be fair, I would support capital punishment for heinous murders. But as things stand, capital punishment is punishment for people with no capital.
- MurMan - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:54 pm:
===I would amend the penal code to pipe in a nonstop Abba soundtrack in the cells of the most heinous prisoners.===
you would have to amend the Constitution RE cruel and unusual punishments. lol
- St. Louis Bob - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:55 pm:
I voted no. I can only see the list of “heinous” crimes growing over time.
- Blue dog dem - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:55 pm:
Just to spice up the dialogue…….an ISIS terrorist sets off a mustard gas bomb in Linoln Park. Killing and maiming hundreds. Life in prison? Guantanamo?
- Pawn - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:58 pm:
No, for the reasons others stated: it’s not a deterrent, it wastes resources, and it is applied disproportionately in this country. It is also irrevocable.
- Nick Name - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 3:59 pm:
@Blue dog dem: Life in prison. Just because ISIS practices human sacrifice doesn’t mean we have to.
@MurMan: there are always exceptions. Thank you for being one.
- Blue dog dem - Friday, Sep 11, 15 @ 4:02 pm:
Nick Name/Pope Francis?