* Bernie…
The organization that represents top state prosecutors in Illinois’ 102 counties is expressing caution about any quick moves to reinstate the death penalty in Illinois.
While the death penalty hasn’t been carried out in Illinois since 1999 and was abolished by the General Assembly in 2011, Gov. Bruce Rauner injected a reinstatement of the penalty in specific cases — multiple murder or murder of a police officer — via an amendatory veto on May 14, less than three weeks before Thursday’s scheduled end of the legislative session. And, Rauner said, because of problems with sentencing innocent people to death in Illinois in the past, he would call for the penalty only in cases where convictions were “beyond all doubt.” […]
The three-page letter from Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser, who wrote the letter on behalf of the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association] noted that the statement grew from a meeting of the statewide group of state’s attorneys in response to Rauner’s amendatory veto of House Bill 4618 — which originally extended a 72-hour waiting period to purchase of “assault” weapons.
“Reinstating the death penalty for a narrow category of violent criminals is a matter of significant public interest,” states the letter, which was presented to the House’s judiciary committee that handles criminal law. “The proposed standard of beyond all doubt, however, is unprecedented and untested in American jurisprudence. For more than 240 years the burden of proof in criminal cases has been beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be ensured that no innocent person is executed. However, changing the burden of proof to a ‘beyond all doubt’ standard is complex and involves constitutional and legal concerns that cannot be evaluated in the brief time thus far allotted.”
The full letter is here.
* Related…
* Conservative group slams effort to reinstate death penalty in Illinois: Heather Beaudoin is the coordinator of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, a network of political and social conservatives who question the alignment of capital punishment with conservative principles and values. She said arguments in favor of the death penalty often don’t withstand scrutiny. “The idea of the death penalty being a deterrent … we’ve just not seen it to be true,” Beaudoin said. “These situations are crimes of passion, often, where the person perpetrating the crime is not thinking about consequences. And I get sort of heated when I hear folks say, ‘We have to have the death penalty for victim’s family members,’ because I’ve personally spoken with so many of them who say it was the opposite of helpful.”
* They got death for killing a cop, but not for killing a guard: Where’s justice?: The death in February of Chicago Police Cmdr. Paul Bauer was heinous. He was shot dead in the Loop while bravely doing his job. But was Cmdr. Bauer’s life worth more than that of Shaquita Bennett, who was gunned down in April, allegedly by an ex-boyfriend who had stalked her for years? Were the lives of Bauer and Bennett worth more than that of 8-year-old Gizzell Ford who was used as a punching bag, whipped with a belt and deprived of food, water and sleep for days by her grandmother before she was strangled?
* League of Women Voters: Reject proposed return of death penalty in Illinois
* Extended Interview: Reps. C.D. Davidsmeyer and Christian Mitchell debate death penalty, gun control
- wordslinger - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 10:15 am:
–State’s attorneys say Rauner’s proposed death penalty change is “unprecedented and untested”–
They’re looking at it the wrong way.
Demagoguing the death plenty for personal political gains has plenty of precedent over a long period of time.
You weren’t expecting a rational, informed discussion from Rauner on the subject, were you? Like he was some kind of responsible leader in a democratic republic?
Not his style.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 10:15 am:
===“The proposed standard of beyond all doubt, however, is unprecedented and untested in American jurisprudence. For more than 240 years the burden of proof in criminal cases has been beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be ensured that no innocent person is executed. However, changing the burden of proof to a ‘beyond all doubt’ standard is complex and involves constitutional and legal concerns that cannot be evaluated in the brief time thus far allotted.”===
Meh. It’s not that at all.
Well, sure it IS all that and more, that IS true, but what it really-really, truly is… it’s a pandering to utter phoniness that IS Bruce Rauner with a slight dog whistle masked by this premise that the death penalty can come back by some new ridiculous standard not found in law.
This is the type of ridiculousness you get when you sign HB40, have criminal justice reform as an accomplishment, and your right flank thinks you signed “sanctuary state” legislation… but can’t explain what it is, in fear it sounds just as bad when you explain what it really does.
Rauner is a phony… “… is unprecedented and untested in American jurisprudence. For more than 240 years the burden of proof in criminal cases has been beyond a reasonable doubt. It must be ensured that no innocent person is executed. However, changing the burden of proof to a ‘beyond all doubt’ standard is complex and involves constitutional and legal concerns that cannot be evaluated in the brief time thus far allotted.”
Exactly right.
- HL Mencken - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 10:16 am:
In a discussion this weekend I learned that this was written as an amendatory veto. How can anyone believe this is constitutional? If it is then the next Governor next year could by amendatory veto enact eligibility for Medicare for all uninsured Illinoisans by an amendatory veto of any health bill enacted by the GA.
- Retired Educator - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 11:13 am:
The attempt to revive the death penalty, is nothing more then Rauner’s attempt to endear himself to the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. It is never going anywhere and Rauner knows it. He is at 26% and I don’t see it getting much better. The BTIA is a clown show, that has no real understanding of the voting public.
- Langhorne - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 11:26 am:
The AV is unconstitutional. Who is rauners legal counsel? If counsel reviewed it, their advice was obviously ignored in favor of political expediency. Nothing new. Message first, last, and always.
- DarkHorse - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 11:54 am:
Since Rauner’s death penalty proposal is all about politics, I wonder what his AG pick - who has previously opposed capital punishment - thinks about this?
- anon - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 12:44 pm:
The opposition response asking if x is more valuable than y is nonsense. The identity of the victim already impacts charging and sentencing. For example, see the laws for assault and battery which increase the class (and sentence) based upon the victim. Hate crimes statutes add an entire charge based upon the victim (and motive of the defendant).
- Actual Red - Tuesday, May 29, 18 @ 4:01 pm:
@anon
I’d quibble with your characterization of hate crime laws. For hate crimes, identity of the victim matters only in relation to motive of the offender. The statute says that a person commits a hate crime when they commit the crime
“by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals.”
It doesn’t specify that the victim must be a member of any particular class, just that their membership of a specific class was the reason for the crime. Every person is a member of multiple protected classes.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050k12-7.1.htm