Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The Laski affair
Next Post: This just in…
Posted in:
* The death penalty moratorium is back in the news…
DuPage County State’s Atty. Joseph Birkett joined a Republican lawmaker Tuesday in urging Gov. Rod Blagojevich to resume executions, saying Illinois’ death-penalty system has been reformed.
“We encourage the governor to follow the law,” said Birkett, president of the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association. “It has been eight years since the moratorium was imposed.” […]
But Blagojevich, who first ran for governor in 2002 as a death penalty proponent, plans to stand pat. He’ll “keep the moratorium on death penalties in place until it’s clear beyond a doubt that the reforms put in place … are adequate and working and there’s no chance that an innocent person will wrongfully be put to death,” spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said Tuesday.
* Meanwhile…
The Abolition in Illinois Movement released a study that suggests Illinois spent $148 million on death penalty cases since a special fund was set up eight years ago. Members say that figure does not include the cost of incarceration, appeals, some salaries and execution expenses.
“We agree the moratorium is not good for prosecutors,” said Elliot Slosar of the abolition group. “We sympathize with the legal limbo it has placed them in, and, while we concur that the moratorium needs to end, bringing executions back is not the solution. Abolition is.”
* Question: Should the moratorium be lifted? And, if you want it lifted, should the death penalty then be resumed or abolished? Explain, and try to be civil to each other. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 8:32 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The Laski affair
Next Post: This just in…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
No, absolutely not.
Not with the Burge story out there.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:01 am
Yes the moratorium should be lifted. We need to figure this out one way or the other.
Comment by OneManBlog Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:05 am
Why is this a story?
The first guy who’d face execution is still years away in appeals.
Lift the moratorium today, tomorrow, yesterday. It doesn’t matter. No one’s going to be executed anytime soon.
The so-called moratorium exists merely for political purposes at this point so people like Joe Birkett can assail its existence and abolitionists can call for it to be made permanent.
It does nothing, much like the rest of state government. You’d think both sides would have far better things to spend their time and money on — like making sure criminals are caught and the innocent get fair trials.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:13 am
Birkett is talking about this but so is Alvarez.
She mentions changing factors that would allow
a death penalty, like not including drive by
shootings, things that make too many cases
death eligible. She also says that there should
be a referendum on the death penalty, although
I did not read if she meant the penalty itself
or other factors.
Politicians aside, evil exists in the world;
lift the moratorium, impose the penalty where
appropriate. I believe the Tinley Park murderer deserves the death penalty. Gacy deserved it too. And Osama. A death penalty is appropriate in some cases.
Which is why George Ryan’s blanket wipe out
of Death Row was so cynical. Some of those
cases were appropriate for the penalty. The
deathy penalty should be imposed based on the
facts in a case.
Comment by Amy Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:22 am
Why would anyone trust their lives to any government process of deciding whether you are to be put to death? We all know that there is no 100% accuracy in implementing this thing. We all know that occassionally someone not guilty of the crime they are facing is put to death anyway.
So how many mistakes will you allow our government to make? What point does it prove? The reforms will only make it more difficult to kill innocent people, not eliminate it.
I am pro-life. When in doubt about an individual’s circumstances, you err on the side of letting them live.
Lift the moratorium, then get rid of it. Lock people up for life, and then allow time and science to reveal evidence unavailable at the time of conviction.
Our government can’t do much of anything right. Why in the world would you allow it to kill you?
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:26 am
From the Death Penalty Information Center: “Of all known executions that took place in 2006, 91% were carried out in six countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the United States.”
Hmmm…Interesting company we are keeping.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:27 am
I don’t think it should be lifted now, among other things, there’s no compelling reason to lift it, no hot case prisoners are coming up for execution anytime soon. But it should be floated around that it can be lifted at any time for any reason. That will keep those on Death Row from sleeping too easy.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:41 am
Lift it and abolish it. The cost of death penalty cases would pay for an entire super max to house these guys in for life, and still not use up the same expenditures. Setting aside the moral debate, the cost is not anywhere near the little benefit we recieve for the retirubution.
Interestingly there have been killers who wanted to be put to death, so that they did not have to spend their lives behind bars.
So cost wise it offers little benefit from a retribution side. From a deterrent side, if life in prison will not keep you in line, a death penalty will not be more likely to curb such behavior.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:45 am
But of course, Mr. Slosar needs to address evidence that abolishment has a cost:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
If we can stop others from smoking since it has a bad effect on ME, I think we can keep the death penalty since abolishing it has a bad effect on ME.
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:46 am
Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:13 am:
Why is this a story?
The first guy who’d face execution is still years away in appels.
THis is a story because prosecutors and public defenders spend hundreds of millions of dollars of the peoples money on death penalty cases. If there is no death penalty, we don’t need to spend those dollars.
Comment by Moderate REpub Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:01 am
Abolish and Lift.
Until the possibility of error is eliminated by perfecting humans and human institutions, the state should not kill its citizens.
After humanity is perfected, the death penalty will not be necessary.
Win-Win!
– SCAM
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:09 am
How does Birkett know the system has been reformed correctly? I agree with the death penalty for heinous crimes like the Brown’s chicken massacre or the Tinley Park slayings, however, the system is not fixed because Joe Birkett says so.
There seems to be plenty of evidence that Chicago still has problems with it’s police force and I am sure Chicago is not alone. Professional police work is what will bring confidence to reinstate the death penalty.
Birkett, by the way, is a block head.
Comment by Garp Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:12 am
I once prosecuted four men who robbed a jewelry store, tying up five people inside. After they were caught, we asked them why they had left living witnesses. Each told us that “we didn’t want to fry if we were caught”. They had actually discussed this before the robbery. So don’t tell me that the death penalty doesn’t save innocent lives. But it must be used to be a real threat. Most of those on death row present no serious doubts about their guilt.
Comment by Legal Eagle Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:17 am
I suspect that Birkett is still angry that he and former DuPage States Atty. Jim Ryan were not allowed to murder an innocent man in the Jeanne Nicario (spelling?) case. That the innocent man was hispanic was just added political gilt.
Remember how he refused to allow the real murderer to confess because he (Burkett) would not grant the real murderer immunity from the death penalty.
Well, blood lust and dishonesty was never a losing
stance in DuPage county at least as long as you are a Republican.
Comment by jim2445 Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:17 am
Will the Chicago police, states atty, etc pledge not to fabricate evidence, assault/torture suspects and shed some light on the history of the past 25-40 years of their operations? Will Dick Devine, former states atty Richard Daley, etc open up on what they know/knew?
With the new police chief and Alvarez (although she thinks the office deserves a B+ for performance and is part of the past), this is a great time to shed some light and bring back the penalty if things will be open and operated with integrity.
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:21 am
Abolish. Forget all the policy arguments, even though, on balance, I firmly believe they weigh against the DP. I say abolish because the DP teaches us to hold onto our hate, to see revenge as a blessing, and to believe that murderers are simply not human. The best moral teachings I’ve ever heard stress the unity of humanity, the moral imperative of trying again and again to make ourselves parts of a loving whole. Those creeds that stress division, classification, parsing out who is worthy and and who is not just make me tired. And execution is the ultimate act of social and human fragmentation. I believe in the rule of law, the use of deadly force in emergencies, and in just war. But when alternatives exist, when we can choose to be more humane or less, I say we choose more.
Comment by Muskrat Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:27 am
Moderage Repub:
You don’t think the legal costs of trials for people facing life in prison without parole won’t suddenly skyrocket the day the death penalty is gone?
The state fund that covers defense fees in capital cases will be changed to cover life in prison cases and appeals. There will be far more of those cases so I could envision a scenario where the costs actually go up by doing away with the death penalty.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:29 am
The death penalty discussion brings out our basic belief systems into focus. In a perfect world where people did not lie, prosecutors worked solely from the evidence and the judges were truly impartial, then perhaps we could come to that 100% certainty necessary for a State sponsored.
Unfortunately we have a government in the State of Illinois that cannot perform its basic functions without kow-towing to the special interests and greasing the skids for corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. Despite the number of good, honest hardworking people in their state jobs, there can never be certainty that the results of an Illinois trial are untainted by politics.
This State cannot be trusted to administer a deathe penalty.
Comment by plutocrat03 Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:40 am
Has there been any movement on death penalty reforms since Blagojevich came to power? If there hasn’t then there shouldn’t be a problem with either abolishing it or leaving it be. It doesn’t makes sense if there isn’t much being done while the moratorium continues.
Comment by Levois Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:45 am
Lift and abolish. From a fiscal responsibility standpoint, life in prison is much more economical than executing someone. Plus, I think the punishment of rotting in prison for life is much more appropriate than assisting a criminal in ending his life, which he already knows is over. Not to mention due process issues, cruel and unusual punishment issues, and that government shouldn’t be ordering the death of people.
Garp - Birkett is a complete block head. Please oh please let him be the republican nominee for governor in 2010.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:51 am
I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty. Call me bloodthirsty but I tend to support it for extreme crimes.
Having said that, is Birkett really the right guy to carry this flag? No.
Comment by Stuck with Sen. CPA Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:00 am
in a world where people murder, kill multiple
people, evil should be punished. here’s hoping
that the guy caught today is in fact the tinley
park murderer. and that he is appropriately
punished.
Comment by Amy Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:10 am
It’s overzealous prosecutors like Birkett who brought about the moriatorium in the first place. If he focused more on prosecuting actual criminals instead of grabbing headlines, we all might have more confidence in the criminal justice system.
Comment by M.V. Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:11 am
Allow Death Penalty to stand, but if given the choice between death and max. security for rest of their lives - no chance of parole, Let the con make the choice.
Comment by Pro-Choice Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:12 am
LeagleEagle there is a fatal flaw in your argument about the 4 guys. They did not say “if we would have been locked away for life we would have killed them, but we didn’t want to fry.” The fear of punishment effected their decision, but they did not say the fear of life in prison would have been less motivating then death. So I postively will say there exists no evidence the death penalty is MORE motivation to deter crime then life in prison.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:13 am
The United States is a party to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but we have not signed and ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, which aims at the abolition of the death penalty. I think it’s time that the United States finally became a party to that treaty.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:18 am
To Pot: You entered: From the Death Penalty Information Center: “Of all known executions that took place in 2006, 91% were carried out in six countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the United States.”
What is the US percetage of the 91%. Also, is this including unreported executions in these other countries. We know of mass graves in Iraq from the past. Are you confident that there aren’t more? Not taking a side yet. Just curious.
Comment by What can I say? Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:28 am
Weird how cost guides so much of what we say about the death penalty. If higher cost is a compelling argument, then I can think of lots of ways to reduce it. I support the death penalty, but I also recognize arguments against my position. Cost, however, strikes me as a really weak one.
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:29 am
One point of discussion that typically gets lost in the discussion about the Death Penalty is the cost of putting someone to death - and I’m going to take a different approach.
There were numbers thrown out in the original post about how much it costs for a death penalty and comparing that to life in prison.
However, why don’t we ask the question about why does it cost so #$%& much to take a death penalty case? Are we convinced that all of the appeals after appeals, etc. are really worthwile? NO - I’m not talking about the actual defense of someone that might be innocent and getting to the facts, I’m talking about the legal posturing that is done along that process. It seems to me that the legal system in general is beyond the touch of the budgetary pen. Are lawyers just there driving up the costs because they benefit, or is this truly a matter of getting at the truth of a matter. I’m guessing that there is a sufficient amount in the former that should be explored.
AFTER we get through that, then let’s have a decent conversation about whether we should resume the death penalty or life in prison.
Comment by Trafficmatt Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:30 am
Squideshi- That would be nice, but as I’m sure you know, America isn’t too keen on signing treaties and protocols that they can’t slyly get out of via an attached reservation.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:32 am
Let’s lift the moratorium and abolish the death penalty. The state should not be in the business of ending life. Not to mention the cost of the whole process. Unless a politician can live with the blood of an innocent person on thier hands, they should feel the same way–after all, have we ever seen a system run by the government (or man for that matter) that is perfect?
Comment by K to the 3 Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:43 am
Greg is right: arguing against the death penalty because of its cost seems backwards.
Allowing Illinois to set up a “special fund” for anything seems to me an invitation to lose 148 million dollars.
Comment by mpkomara Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:53 am
Lift and abolish. Courts are extremely fallible, as anyone who has spent time covering them will tell you. Replace with Life Without Parole.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:54 am
Trafficmatt the short answer is fear of making a mistake. The cost reflects the cost of the current safeguards which attempt to make sure mistakes are not made. Even then, we have made mistakes. Also look at folks who have been released recently after decade or decades in jail and new DNA testing showed they were innocent. If we kill somone by error, its hard to undo that booboo. If we lock them up for life based on the best information we have at the time, and it later is possible to use new tech to go back over that info, we can at least set them free if we made a booboo that was unknowable at the time.
As I said, there is little that suggest death is a bigger deterent to capital crimes then life in prison.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 12:27 pm
Abolish in favor of “life without parole,” a much more fiscally cheaper alternative than resuming executions. Whatever deterence benefits may exist are outweighed by: (1) the strong belief, even if by a (growing) minority, that the death penalty is unfair in application and flawed in practice; and (2) the enormously high cost associated with going through all the due process necessary to get to execution. From a societal standpoint, the death penalty lacks the sort of broad support that, if it is resumed, promotes respect for the law. Lift the moratorium and forthrightly deal with the issue.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 12:35 pm
What can I say?: Confirmed executions in 2006: 1,591 Of those: China (1,010), Iran (177), Pakistan (82), Iraq (65), Sudan (65), United States (53). For 2005 the numbers were: 2148 with China (1770), Iran (94), Saudi Arabia (86), U.S. (60), Pak. (31), Yemen (24)
China is the top dog for executions, but we are in the pack with the rest of the death penalty countries. Per capita we are lower. The core point, however, is that we are not in the mainstream of developed countries. I would argue our whole view on “justice” is flawed by an undercurrent of vindictiveness.
We should focus on using research-based methods of punishment and rehab. Examples: Brain research show clearly that juveniles do not process decisions in the same way adults do, thus charging a juvenile as an adult is probably never appropriate, no matter how heinous the crime. In addition, intensive education and rehab works very well when dealing with juveniles. Research also shows that the best way to reduce recidivism among adult convicts is education. Unfortunately, education seems to be one of the most controversial things we offer convicts and is woefully underfunded.
Crime rates cannot be tied to the presence or absence of the death penalty (individual anecdotes are not good data). The research in this area is all over the board, but the bulk of it indicates that the death penalty does not reduce the crimes for which it is imposed. I suspect this is because criminals do not plan to get caught so the potential punishment is irrelevant.
Finally, research shows that economic circumstances and race are good predictors of who will receive the death sentence. We do not impose the death penalty for being convicted of murder, rather it is imposed for being a poor minority convicted of murder. This bias alone should give us pause.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 12:56 pm
The state should not be in the business of killing its citizens. It really should avoid killing generally.
Comment by Ramsin Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Reinstate the death penalty for those cases in which the evidence of guilt is totally beyond doubt. Think of someone like Gacy or the BTK strangler. Evidence proved, confessions were made, and the crimes were heinous. In these cases, the vast appeals should be narrowed and justice served quickly.
Squideshi,
The government should enter no such treaty. With some members of the SCOTUS, international law already takes too much precedence, even when it has no bearing on the case at hand. I would hate to give those justices real reasons to subvert the Constitution.
Comment by Fan of the Game Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:20 pm
Do away with the death penalty. I hardly trust the government with my taxes, let alone my or anyone else’s life! When you’re talking about the government putting someone to death - you HAVE to have an error proof system - and that ain’t going to happen. Period.
Plus, it’s not an effective deterrent to crime, is not particulary effective leverage during plea bargains, and it costs more than just sentencing someone to life - which brings it back to use of tax dollars.
Comment by Left Leaner Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:28 pm
If life in prison is as awful as the death penalty, then it would reason that those mistakenly incarcerated who served most/all of their sentences are as upset as those wrongly executed…not to mention presumably less likely to be vindicated.
And, no, this is not my basis for supporting it. But I gotta have fun with logic.
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:40 pm
Ghost,
Completely agree with the comments that you made. That was not exactly my point.
My point is that I believe that there are a host of inefficiencies that are built into the legal system that could be reviewed. It is one thing to give everyone a fair and thorough review of their case. That being said, I have seen too many death penalty cases where the review and appeals process takes 10 years. I know I have trouble remembering events that happened last week. Asking witnesses and people involved to recall events that happened 10 years ago, seem odd to me. I cannot understand why some of these cases take as long as they do. Given that, I am led to the conclusion that there are gross inefficiencies that are built into the system that should be cleaned up. However, the lawyers are the ones that contol the system and they have no reason to want to adjust a system that pays them so well. I read an item years ago, which may or may not be accurate that the United States has 70% of all the lawyers in the world. That might be part of the problem.
Comment by Trafficmatt Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:53 pm
Wow is it great having BrickHeadJoe back in the shooting gallery or what. We felt good about the start of spring training and NASCAR.
But who would have thought the Brick would be back pushing more executions!
Don’t ya wonder if the Blaggodiots promoted this one?
Right, they are not that clever.
Comment by IncrediblyDumberThanYouThink Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 2:00 pm
Until we can bring the wrongly convicted and executed back to life the death penalty should be abolished. Then the moratorium is moot . . . but only then.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 2:36 pm
It’s been awhile since i looked, but i believe the bipartisan death penalty commission recommended about 80 reforms and around 17 were adopted.
I think lifting the moratorium before the reforms that even Republicans admit are necessary have been implemented is absurd.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 3:24 pm
Fan said: “Reinstate the death penalty for those cases in which the evidence of guilt is totally beyond doubt.”
This is a nice idea, but I cannot imagine how it could be implemented. Evidence can be tampered with, confessions coerced.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 3:35 pm
Bill S. Preston, Esq. wrote, “That would be nice, but as I’m sure you know, America isn’t too keen on signing treaties and protocols that they can’t slyly get out of via an attached reservation.”
Yeah. We need to change that. It’s disingenuous to go around the world saying that we support the rule of law and then ignore it ourselves.
Fan of the Game wrote, “With some members of the SCOTUS, international law already takes too much precedence, even when it has no bearing on the case at hand.”
Ummm… International law IS often also the “supreme law of the land” in the United States, per the United States Constitution itself. I think resolving international disputes in a world court is FAR better than killing each other.
Comment by Squideshi Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 5:07 pm
Squideshi,
I realize that every treaty into which the US enters dissolves some part of our sovereignty, which makes it imperative that we enter into treaties only when they serve our interests.
But then you write, “I think resolving international disputes in a world court is FAR better than killing each other.” The death penalty in the United States is not an international dispute and a world court should have absolutely no bearing on a state’s laws and punishments. In certain cases the SCOTUS has decided cases based not on US laws or treaties but merely on what other countries are doing.
Comment by Fan of the Game Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 8:18 pm
Thanks, Pot.
On your response to Fan, I have 3 words: John Wayne Gacy.
No doubt about him and others of the ilk. Dahmer, Speck, Bundy, etc. No doubts. When it’s not painfully obvious, I will agree with you.
Comment by What can I say? Thursday, Feb 14, 08 @ 3:13 pm