Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Illinois Credit Unions: Giving Back to the Communities We Serve
Next Post: A closer look at sports betting in Illinois
Posted in:
* From Gov. Rauner’s amendatory veto press release…
Defendants would be tried using a higher standard for determining guilt. Death penalty murder suspects would have to be convicted by juries “beyond all doubt,” not just “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for guilty findings of other criminal offenses.
* This is not a new idea. From February of 2005…
A bipartisan group of legislators called Friday to raise the standard of proof for sentencing a person to death in Illinois by requiring a judge or jury to determine a defendant is guilty beyond “all doubt,” a move that could renew efforts to lift Illinois’ moratorium on executions. […]
The legislation would not change the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof long required to win a criminal conviction. The beyond “all doubt” standard would only be applied once a guilty verdict has been rendered and a jury or judge is weighing whether to invoke the death penalty.
If there remained what the legislation calls “residual doubt” during the sentencing phase of a capital trial, the defendant would be sentenced to life in prison instead of lethal injection. […]
An aide to Cook County State’s Atty. Richard Devine said the beyond “all doubt” standard would set the bar so high that it would be hard to sentence anybody to death no matter how heinous the crime.
“DNA evidence that might be introduced at trial might say that there’s one chance in a billion that the perpetrator was someone other than the convicted defendant,” said John Gorman, the Devine spokesman. “Then the burden would appear to compel a jury to come up with no death [penalty].” […]
The Illinois Supreme Court, which consistently rules against attempts to define reasonable doubt, would likely reject two standards in a death penalty case, said Gorman, the spokesman for Devine. […]
Peoria County State’s Atty. Kevin Lyons said the legislation could cause jurors to vote to convict in some cases where they might otherwise have not because they don’t have to worry that their action will lead to someone’s death.
That bill was sponsored by House Republican Leader Tom Cross. It went basically nowhere.
* Meanwhile, let’s move on to Cross’ successor, Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin. His statement yesterday…
“As a former prosecutor, I believe the governor’s recommended changes strike the right balance to reduce senseless gun violence in Chicago and throughout the state. Allowing a prosecutor the option to seek the death penalty in the most horrific and brutal of crimes should be the law of Illinois and sends a message that we support those who wear the badge.”
It “sends a message”? That ain’t much.
* Leader Durkin has long been a proponent of the death penalty. From June 5, 2009…
The Chicago Bar Association held a forum today and a couple hundred lawyers attended. One of the attendees and presenters was Republican State Representative Jim Durkin. He says Illinois will never repeal the death penalty.
But he’s often been kinda hazy on why it’s really needed…
Rep. Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, disputed the notion that Illinois’ death penalty system is still flawed after several legislative reforms have been passed in the last decade. He said Illinois’ system “is better than any other state in the union” and that the 15 men who had been on Illinois’ death row until Wednesday “have been given more than due process.”
“Our system is not broken. It was fixed,” Durkin said. He said he does not believe the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, but “it is important to have the option available. A lot of times we forget about the families that lost somebody. If this penalty is available, this option, to bring closure to those families, I think we need to have that.” [Emphasis added.]
So, if it’s not a deterrent, how does it “reduce senseless gun violence”?
* 2011…
Without the death penalty, Durkin believes, there is no adequate punishment for the most vicious criminals. “A lot of these other arguments will not matter when someone is faced with the murder of a loved one.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 10:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Illinois Credit Unions: Giving Back to the Communities We Serve
Next Post: A closer look at sports betting in Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Durkin is just grasping at straws. If you want revenge, say you want revenge. But don’t call it justice.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:00 am
The family of someone murdered doesn’t suddenly heal if someone else dies because of it.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:01 am
Rauner’s proposal would have no impact on “senseless “ gun violence. Most weekend shootings are not mass murders but various individuals caught in cross fire or gang on gang shootings. Fortunately few police officers shot. But out of curiosity would death penalty apply to off duty police shot and killed? What about plain clothes detective that shooter did not know was a police officer
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:03 am
Rauner is pushing this because he thinks it’s good politics. It will go nowhere because it isn’t good policy.
Comment by Pundent Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:06 am
Illinois will never reverse the death penalty. This feels like nonsense red-meat pandering by Rauner. Smart of him to change his tack to introduce a new course of debate rather than negotiate with the General Assembly’s bad-faith bill, but this isn’t intellectually honest by the Rauner camp either.
Comment by Chris Widger Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:07 am
This is how it goes when you do not believe in anything other than your own personal needs. This is also Rauner trying to appeal to the far right, even as he tries to woo the left.
As OW has stated/asked “who is his constituency?”.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:31 am
“suddenly heal” Yes, cause, miracles, but there are families who want to see the ultimate punishment given to the murderer who took away the life of their loved one.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:40 am
===but there are families who want to see===
True, but plenty of people want to see a lot of things. Doesn’t mean the GA should go along.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:42 am
I will only add that it’s unlikely that Rauner has considered the extra cost to taxpayers his proposed new burden will create. A “beyond all doubt” standard will likely cause endless appeals with the cost associated with them.
So the repeal of the death penalty does not dissuade crime and it adds to the tax burden. From the taxpayer perspective, Rauner again fails the taxpayer.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:45 am
~So, if it’s not a deterrent, how does it “reduce senseless gun violence”~
~Having a person punished by society provides some measure of revenge for the specific victim of the act. If society provides an adequate punishment, the need for an individual to seek revenge personally is diminished and providing incentive to seek retribution through law enforcement.~
The lack of confidence that society will do something about the murder of a friend or family member resulting in vigilante acts of revenge is part of our street violence problem.
It does not take the reinstatement of the death penalty to fix this however.
Comment by Freezeup Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:50 am
To paraphrase Sister Helen Prejean: Capital punishment is punishment for people without capital.
Comment by IllinoisBoi Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:54 am
The death penalty is not a new concept for Illinois. It has been in effect before, and used. In effect in 31 states. Still in effect in California, blue land that it is.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 11:55 am
Two mass murders in Illinois in recent history. In the Brown’s Chicken case, the jury voted against the death penalty. In the NIU case, the shooter killed himself.
It is difficult legally to square the call for the death penalty for murdered police officers with the news of murdered suspects and police corruption.
If we are going to have the death penalty for suspects who kill police officers, shouldn’t we have the death penalty for police officers who kill suspects? Is a police officer’s life worth more than any father or son’s? No, and that is only part of the reason this makes no sense.
I don’t think all and perhaps any of the recommendations from the death penalty reform task force have been enacted.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 12:03 pm
=== The lack of confidence that society will do something about the murder of a friend or family member resulting in vigilante acts of revenge is part of our street violence problem. ===
This bill will do nothing to address the escallating tit-for-tat that often starts with a social media spat between two teenagers disrespecting each other and ends with dads roaming the streets with guns.
For that, you need school social workers, which Bruce Rauner opposes.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 12:13 pm
Juvenal, Rauner defines a mass murder as the killing of two or more individuals. So this would apply to a lot more people than just the Cole Hall and Brown’s Chicken shootings.
Of the 15 people who were on death row at the time capital punishment was abolished, 6 had been convicted of killing 2 or more individuals. (That number does not include Brian Dugan who was on death row for the Nicarico murder, but not the other murders that he had been previously convicted for.)
To follow up on A Jack’s point on cost, GRF made an annual deposit of around $15 million to the capital litigation trust fund leading up to 2011. So just add that onto the Governor’s ever growing list of spending demands.
Comment by Juice Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 12:15 pm
So GovJunk spend 3 years doing his Early Release plan to empty prisons and save some $$$$. Now he is flip-flopin’. hard to believe he is makin; Blagoof look substantive
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 12:47 pm
Let’s not waste time talking about Rauner’s poison pill. It was simply and obviously to kill the assault weapon waiting period bill.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 1:10 pm
Wisely, we do not allow families to sentence the convicted.
Comment by NoGifts Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 1:50 pm
There was a very good reason the death penalty was abolished in the first place.
Comment by M Tuesday, May 15, 18 @ 5:37 pm