State of Illinois (US) repealing death penalty

[Broomstick]

Today the Illinois State legislature repealed the state death penalty. The only step left is the governor's signature.

SPRINGFIELD — In a landmark vote, the Illinois Senate narrowly opted to abolish the state’s death penalty Tuesday after two hours of rancorous debate that pitted the rights of crime victims against a criminal justice system that some said was irreparably broken.

The Senate’s 32-25 vote sends the legislation to Gov. Quinn, who advocated keeping the moratorium on executions first imposed by former Gov. George Ryan but so far has been silent about the abolition legislation.

“We have a historic opportunity today,” said Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), the bill’s chief Senate sponsor. “We have an opportunity to part company as a state with countries that are the worst human-rights violators and join the civilized world and end this practice of risking putting to death innocent people.”

Twenty men sentenced to death and imprisoned for crimes they did not commit have been exonerated since Illinois re-imposed the death penalty in 1977. Illinois would be the third state in the last four years to end executions if Quinn signs the measure.

During debate, Raoul invoked the names of Randy Steidl, who watched the debate from the Senate gallery, and Jerry Hobbs as prime examples of why Illinois needs to end the practice of executing condemned killers by lethal injection.

Steidl was convicted of the 1986 stabbing deaths of a young couple in Downstate Paris after a key witness recanted her testimony that she witnessed the murders, and state authorities found police mishandled the initial probe.

“I believe the Illinois state senate put partisan politics aside and voted for humanity,” Steidl said. “As everyone has described, the death penalty system in Illinois has been broken for decades.”

Hobbs spent five years in prison for the 2005 murder of his eight-year-old daughter, Laura, and her nine-year-old friend Krystal Tobias in Zion, but he was cleared after DNA evidence from the crime scene implicated someone else. Hobbs has since sued several suburban law enforcement agencies, alleging he was tortured into making a confession.

“We have to take ourselves back in history to what we were reading about Jerry Hobbs prior to us finding out that he didn’t do it,” Raoul said. “What were you thinking? I submit to you, you were probably thinking that man needs to be put to death. But he didn’t do it.”

Opponents said taking away the death penalty would take away an important tool from prosecutors and represented a slap at victims’ families.

“I spoke to the victims’ families immediately after their children or loved ones were murdered. I saw the look in their eye. I’m the one who had to tell them what happened to their child,” said state Sen. John Millner (R-Carol Stream), the former Elmhurst police chief who helped investigate the ritualistic murders that led to the 1999 execution of serial killer Andrew Kokoraleis.

Like Kokoraleis, the last man put to death in Illinois, prosecutors need the ultimate punishment to pursue criminals that are the “worst of the worst,” like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, serial killer John Wayne Gacy or, if he is convicted, accused Arizona mass murderer Jared Loughner.

“It’s a question of righting the greatest wrong. It is not a question, I repeat, of vengeance. It’s a question of the people being outraged at such terrible crimes, such bloodletting, the massacre on Sept. the 11th, the massacre recently in Arizona,” said Sen. William Haine (D-Alton), a former downstate state’s attorney, who voted against the bill.

But state Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago) argued worry over being executed did not keep Loughner from allegedly shooting U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and killing six others in a weekend rampage.

“Arizona’s got the death penalty. It didn’t stop that crank. It didn’t stop that idiot,” Hendon said. “It’s not the deterrent you think.”

An aide to Quinn would not divulge the governor’s stance on the legislation.

“Gov. Quinn plans to review the bill when he receives it from the legislature,” spokeswoman Annie Thompson said.

Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty and view this as a positive step. I believe this makes 15 (out of 50) US states that no longer have the death penalty.

[Todeswind]

I'm not opposed to the death penalty but I'm not in love with it either. So long as the people who would ostensibly be eligible for the death penalty are put away from the rest of the world without any chance of parole I hardly see it as mattering.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It seems congratulations are in order for the elected representatives of the proud state of Illinois.

We take it as a truism in our society that it is better to send a guilty man walking out the front doors of the courthouse than to send an innocent man to prison. But the simple fact is that the criminal justice system is ultimately staffed by human beings - fallible human beings, who can make mistakes, or be colored by prejudices even they do not realize they have.

In the end, innocent men do get sent to prison, and that's a tragedy. A state cannot return to someone the time he has lost, but it can set him free and exonerate his name to the public. However, if he is put to death for a crime he didn't commit then not even that measure is possible. They can't open up the gates of the graveyard and tell him to get up out of his grave and shame home a free corpse.

Whether or not the legislators of the state of Illinois believe that some crimes are so heinous that the interests of society demands the perpetrator be put to death, they clearly recognize that once a person has been put to death it is final, and mistaken executions are absolutely intolerable. Therefor, the only way to prevent them is to do away with executions altogether.

It's a lesson I wish the rest of the Union would take to heart.

[Todeswind]

In the end, innocent men do get sent to prison, and that's a tragedy. A state cannot return to someone the time he has lost, but it can set him free and exonerate his name to the public. However, if he is put to death for a crime he didn't commit then not even that measure is possible. They can't open up the gates of the graveyard and tell him to get up out of his grave and shame home a free corpse.

Ostensibly that's what the appeals process is for.

[Thanas]

^Which is very flawed.

[ShadowDragon8685]

In the end, innocent men do get sent to prison, and that's a tragedy. A state cannot return to someone the time he has lost, but it can set him free and exonerate his name to the public. However, if he is put to death for a crime he didn't commit then not even that measure is possible. They can't open up the gates of the graveyard and tell him to get up out of his grave and shame home a free corpse.

Ostensibly that's what the appeals process is for.

Unless appeals are being overseen by an omniscient entity, appeals are subject to the same mistakes of humanity that the original trial process is. Given that such is unavailable, appeals themselves are insufficient.

It is intolerable for an innocent person to be put to death for a crime they did not commit. As the only ways to be guaranteed of that are to involve an omniscient being or to do away with the death penalty, doing in the death penalty is by far the most practical and expedient means.

[Stark]

The law isn't supposed to be perfect. 'Wrongfully executed' is a poor way to attack the death penalty, since there is a mountain of evidence that it doesn't do anything it is often expected to do (ie speed trials, reduce prison populations, deter crime, etc).

[Chaotic Neutral]

Not to mention it costs more than life in prison.

[Todeswind]

It is intolerable for an innocent person to be put to death for a crime they did not commit. As the only ways to be guaranteed of that are to involve an omniscient being or to do away with the death penalty, doing in the death penalty is by far the most practical and expedient means.

Is it more moral to make someone die in a cage after decades of isolation?

The problem with that argument is, at least in the USA, you get just as many bites at the appeals process as a death row prisoner as you do as a lifer. Sometimes you even get more specifically because it is a question of life and death. You can only take a trial as high as the supreme court, and even then they have to decide if your case does or does not have merit.

Not to mention it costs more than life in prison.

That's also a flawed argument. People claim that the legal system is tied up with too many appeals from death row inmates but that presumes that those inmates would not be appealing their sentencing were they only convicted for a lifetime sentence. People aren't about to give up on trying to get out of prison any more than they are about to try give up on trying not to die.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The law isn't supposed to be perfect. 'Wrongfully executed' is a poor way to attack the death penalty, since there is a mountain of evidence that it doesn't do anything it is often expected to do (ie speed trials, reduce prison populations, deter crime, etc).

The average 'Murican doesn't give a damn that it's actually ineffective, it makes him feel good because politicians say that by being tough on criminals and killing the worst of them will scare straight the other criminals. He believes it despite the evidence.

However, the average 'Murican is also wary of the police, whether for incompetence or outright misconduct, and they hate lawyers. It's not a far stretch for that 'Murican to imagine himself landed in a courtroom defending himself against a crime he didn't commit, and when you use that argument, he starts to picture himself on death row, wrongfully convicted.

Besides, I don't think it is that poor of an argument. Certainly the other arguments are good arguments, but don't put the argument about wrongful execution out to pasture.

Is it more moral to make someone die in a cage after decades of isolation?

The heinous condition of prisons in the United States is another thing to discuss, but when you're considering killing someone an act of mercy opposed to keeping them confined under your care for life, your care is insufficient.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Not to mention it costs more than life in prison.

That's also a flawed argument. People claim that the legal system is tied up with too many appeals from death row inmates but that presumes that those inmates would not be appealing their sentencing were they only convicted for a lifetime sentence. People aren't about to give up on trying to get out of prison any more than they are about to try give up on trying not to die.

Wait, so death row is cheaper than life in prison? In that case, I just changed my opinion, that was the only reason I was against it.

[K. A. Pital]

You being sarcastic or you're really dumb enough to make a judgement about a concept based only on cost-efficiency?

[Flagg]

You being sarcastic or you're really dumb enough to make a judgement about a concept based only on cost-efficiency?

Either way that post is epic fail.

I'm strongly against the death penalty. Hell, I'm not too fond of life in prison with no parole.

[Chaotic Neutral]

How many executed prisoners have been proven innocent anyway? Numbers would make it much easier to tell whether it is worth it.

[Simon_Jester]

The law isn't supposed to be perfect. 'Wrongfully executed' is a poor way to attack the death penalty, since there is a mountain of evidence that it doesn't do anything it is often expected to do (ie speed trials, reduce prison populations, deter crime, etc).

On the contrary, it's a perfectly good way to attack the death penalty. "This process kills the wrong people" is a sufficient argument. It just isn't a necessary one.

[Todeswind]

The average 'Murican doesn't give a damn that it's actually ineffective, it makes him feel good because politicians say that by being tough on criminals and killing the worst of them will scare straight the other criminals. He believes it despite the evidence.

However, the average 'Murican is also wary of the police, whether for incompetence or outright misconduct, and they hate lawyers. It's not a far stretch for that 'Murican to imagine himself landed in a courtroom defending himself against a crime he didn't commit, and when you use that argument, he starts to picture himself on death row, wrongfully convicted.

Besides, I don't think it is that poor of an argument. Certainly the other arguments are good arguments, but don't put the argument about wrongful execution out to pasture.

A great number of wrongful convictions have been made over the USA's history but most of them have been overturned by the appeals process. The vast majority of convictions are not wrongful conviction, that is to say that there is never sufficient evidence to bring about reasonable doubt. Since 1970 have only been 138 people sentenced to death and exonerated for that crime prior to execution, its a matter of debate how many people were wrongfully convicted before the year 1970 but I suspect the number was probably statistically higher for convictions and lower for exonerations. The Death penalty information center has a published list of eight people who were killed but "possibly innocent" and another forty or so who are "possibly innocent" and currently in the appeals process.

Assuming that they're right and 8 out of 1235 executions since 1976 were questionable that puts the appeals process at about a 99.35% success rate. At a the 99.35% point it becomes more of an academic debate over if a system that kills one innocent man and a hundred cold blooded murders is a fair system and I can understand argument either way.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex ... ow_inmates

Is it more moral to make someone die in a cage after decades of isolation?

The heinous condition of prisons in the United States is another thing to discuss, but when you're considering killing someone an act of mercy opposed to keeping them confined under your care for life, your care is insufficient.

Jail is always a cage. You can make it as nice of a cage as you want it to be but they're still going to be dying alone in a cage after a period of long term isolation. Life terms are not nice even in Sweden, and dying in a cell in Sweden is about the same as dying in a cell in the USA. It's general population who's conditions are sub-par, not the high profile cases. No DA wants to risk a guilty death prisoner getting an appeal on constitutional grounds for cruel and unusual punishment.

[Teebs]

Jail is always a cage. You can make it as nice of a cage as you want it to be but they're still going to be dying alone in a cage after a period of long term isolation. Life terms are not nice even in Sweden, and dying in a cell in Sweden is about the same as dying in a cell in the USA. It's general population who's conditions are sub-par, not the high profile cases. No DA wants to risk a guilty death prisoner getting an appeal on constitutional grounds for cruel and unusual punishment.

Do you have a source for good/better conditions for death row prisoners? I've always heard that they tend to be treated particularly badly.

[Broomstick]

How many executed prisoners have been proven innocent anyway? Numbers would make it much easier to tell whether it is worth it.

As a bit of a background:

One of the university law programs in Chicago takes part in the Innocence Project, which seeks to exonerate and release those who are innocent but convicted of serious crimes (most involving sexual assault, about a quarter involving murder). As of 2000, 12 people on death row had been executed and thirteen had been found innocent and released. At that point, Governor Ryan (yes, the one who is now in prison himself) pointed out more on death row had been found innocent than had been executed, declared this was a serious problem, and imposed a moratorium on executions which has been in place ever since.

So, in Illinois at least, there was a definite problem with innocent men in line for execution. Even if you are for the death penalty you can't argue that a system where you have more wrongly convicted people awaiting execution than truly guilty is in any way fair, just, or working properly. Hence, even some people who favor the death penalty were behind abolishing the death penalty in Illinois - the system there was that broken. The current governor, Quinn, for example, is pro-death penalty but upon entering office stated very plainly that he wouldn't touch the moratorium. He still has to sign the bill, but the buzz is that he will. Still, until he does it's not official.

[Todeswind]

As of 2000, 12 people on death row had been executed and thirteen had been found innocent and released.

Could you cite a source for this, I can only find records of nine people wholly exonerated in the year 2000. Or do you mean between the years of 1970-2000 50% of convictions were overturned in appeals?

[Broomstick]

Governor's office press release

[Alyrium Denryle]

In the end, innocent men do get sent to prison, and that's a tragedy. A state cannot return to someone the time he has lost, but it can set him free and exonerate his name to the public. However, if he is put to death for a crime he didn't commit then not even that measure is possible. They can't open up the gates of the graveyard and tell him to get up out of his grave and shame home a free corpse.

Ostensibly that's what the appeals process is for.

The appeals process actually does very little in terms of protection from execution if you are innocent. Clearing a guilty verdict is very difficult through the appeals process. What they tend to do is invalidate the original verdict on the basis of an error in law, not in fact. It is another set of channels that gets guilty verdicts overturned based on new evidence.

Is it more moral to make someone die in a cage after decades of isolation?

The problem with that argument is, at least in the USA, you get just as many bites at the appeals process as a death row prisoner as you do as a lifer. Sometimes you even get more specifically because it is a question of life and death. You can only take a trial as high as the supreme court, and even then they have to decide if your case does or does not have merit.

There have been cases where individuals were proven by new technology or methods to have been innocent after they were executed. There was a case here in TX recently, with a guy convicted of arson that ended up burning his kids to death. It turns out that the fire was accidental and the fire investigators at the time were relying on junk science and old wives tales. If he were given life in prison, he could have been released.

Wait, so death row is cheaper than life in prison? In that case, I just changed my opinion, that was the only reason I was against it.

So, executing innocent people, the question of whether it is just to take a life in repayment for one, racism in sentencing, the fact that it neither acts as a deterrent to crime or consolation to victims and thus serves no practical purpose... None of those things matter to you at all?

You really are a sociopath aren't you?

How many executed prisoners have been proven innocent anyway? Numbers would make it much easier to tell whether it is worth it.

I know of at least one. There are probably thousands more when you consider that an independent review of Illinois death row inmates found that fully half of them were innocent.

A great number of wrongful convictions have been made over the USA's history but most of them have been overturned by the appeals process.

Because until recently, objective evidence like DNA was simply not available. The only way to overturn a conviction was to find an error in the law. Consider. The absolute worst evidence you can ever present is eye witness testimony. It does not provide accurate. However, it is the most persuasive to a jury, and many many people have been convicted on the basis of it. What do you think the likelihood is that someone convicted on the basis of eye-witness testimony is innocent? Is there an error in law there that can be used in an appeal? No. Oops!

Assuming that they're right and 8 out of 1235 executions since 1976 were questionable that puts the appeals process at about a 99.35% success rate. At a the 99.35% point it becomes more of an academic debate over if a system that kills one innocent man and a hundred cold blooded murders is a fair system and I can understand argument either way.

Problem with this. It is only possible to make that determination if there is DNA evidence available. For many crimes, there is not.

[Broomstick]

Do you have a source for good/better conditions for death row prisoners? I've always heard that they tend to be treated particularly badly.

It's not like death row inmates are beaten daily or forced to live on stale bread and dirty water. There are minimum standards that must be met.

The typical prison inmate, even on death row, is not actually completely isolated from all human contact. They are permitted to meet with their lawyer. The family can visit them. Provided they behave they likely have contact with other prisoners in places like the exercise yard. They are permitted to correspond with others. John Wayne Gacy used to spend time painting.

Nathan Leopold, Jr. wasn't on death row, he was given "life plus 99" and there wasn't a shred of doubt he was guilty of murder. Yet, while in prison for life he spent his time educating other inmates. Jeffrey Dahmer, sentenced to life without parole, not only killed 17 people he fucking ate some of them (after having sex with them, both while still alive and after death - gives a whole new meaning to "dinner date"). He was killed while performing his janitorial job while teamed with another inmate (who just happened to be a convicted murderer who hated white men and homosexuals - Dahmer was both. Yeah, whoops - or maybe not an accident). These guys weren't sitting in a bare room 24/7 doing nothing with all that time. Yes, there ARE some people who do sit in bare rooms with nothing to do, and I find that appalling and cruel, but it's not an automatic state of being even for those convicted of capital/life sentence crimes. Prison sucks, but let's not exaggerate.

[K. A. Pital]

How many executed prisoners have been proven innocent anyway? Numbers would make it much easier to tell whether it is worth it.

The question is not "how many are wrongfully executed". The death penalty is a measure which has several components - deterrent, punishment, retribution, error risk, etc. All of these elements should be evaluated, but sure enough cost efficiency should be the very last when it comes to judging human life, you know.

[TC Pilot]

Any other people in/around Illinois, was there any build-up to this? The last few days, the Tribune's been talking about nothing but them working on the tax increase, and all of a sudden this is pushed through? I'm curious if the press simply didn't cover it, I'm more oblivious than I thought, or this came completely out of the blue?

Overall, pretty good news. Good to know the state's accomplishing something these days.

[Chaotic Neutral]

How many executed prisoners have been proven innocent anyway? Numbers would make it much easier to tell whether it is worth it.

The question is not "how many are wrongfully executed". The death penalty is a measure which has several components - deterrent, punishment, retribution, error risk, etc. All of these elements should be evaluated, but sure enough cost efficiency should be the very last when it comes to judging human life, you know.

I don't care about punishment or retribution, and it probably has very little deterrent effect. That leaves money and wrongful executions as the two biggest factors.