Illinois bans death penalty

[Sage_Rat]

Executing convicted criminals isn’t barbaric. You have someone who is a waste to the world, doing nothing but eating up space and resources. It should be cheaper, easier, and overall simply more kind to just get them done with.

Unfortunately, with it costing millions of dollars to try convict someone in a death penalty hearing, it ends up eating even more resources in just a few weeks than it costs to lock a guy up for the next 50 years.

The problem isn’t the death penalty nor the non-death penalty, it’s that our court system’s costs are out of hand.

[Jman]

I don’t have a problem with the death penalty in theory. The problem is, in reality the justice system is not perfect. Innocent people are convicted of crimes with at least some regularity, and I think there’s very little worse than executing an innocent person. The fact that it is also not a deterrent means that the only real thing it accomplishes is bloodlust in the cases where we correctly convicted (which I’m sure is most), and outright murder by the state in cases where a person is wrongly convicted…

I wouldn’t mind seeing it go away entirely in the US.

[Northern_Piper]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’d given it some thought and figured the best solution, if a state must have the death penalty, is to restrict the total number of cases per year where the state can seek the death penalty to, say, three per year or one per ten million population per year or some other limited value. Thus the state attorney general (or comparable authority) must carefully choose which cases to ask for the death penalty, and is thus encouraged to pick only the most egregious ones where the crime is particularly heinous and the evidence particularly compelling, and be sure the process is strictly followed since losing the case on the first (and only) round of appeal to the state Supreme Court will be embarrassing. Blood lust satisfied, the odds of an innocent getting killed restricted to the maximum extent possible, and the penalty itself becomes extremely rare.

But that kind of cap could pose due process problems in a case of a group of mass murderers. What if there were a terrorist attack where a large number of terrorists werecaptured alive, having killed many? If they all participated equally in the attack, on what basis does the prosecutor choose the ones who will face the death penalty? If they’re all equally responsible, singling some for death but not others, based solely on a mathematical cap, could well pose problems.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Northern_Piper

But that kind of cap could pose due process problems in a case of a group of mass murderers. What if there were a terrorist attack where a large number of terrorists werecaptured alive, having killed many? If they all participated equally in the attack, on what basis does the prosecutor choose the ones who will face the death penalty? If they’re all equally responsible, singling some for death but not others, based solely on a mathematical cap, could well pose problems.

How often do such cases actually occur, though? For that matter, has a case like this ever occured?

[Lightnin]

@Bricker

Outstanding move. Courageous, in the face of public sentiment, but this is the way to go. Killing people is barbaric, admittedly less so when it’s a convicted murderer, but still barbaric because there’s no reason to do it. Modern penal institutions can keep even the most violent felons secured safely. The only thing executing them does is satisfy our bloodlust.

The death penalty is perfectly constitutional, but it’s a poor policy and I salute Illinois.

There are only a few things that I agree with you on, but this is definitely one of them. Good on Illinois.

[John_Mace]

Good decision. We don’t need the death penalty, and I don’t think a modern society should be in the business of deliberately killing someone when there is an easy alternative.

[kanicbird]

To me the current prison system is cruel, but the death penalty has a glaring contradiction which should ban it’s use permanently IMHO, that being, if the sentence is death it should be done quickly, not drawing it out, yet for such a sentence to be issued all possible appeals should be available for the accused/convicted and for the good of the people who have sentenced him/her - this takes time, which makes the sentence cruel by default.

[Heyoka13]

Would any supporter of banning capitol punishment in Illinois be adverse to an exception being made for Jim Ryan for his role in the Nicarico/Cruz/Hernandez fiasco?

Some DuPage county officials could get in on this exception too . . .
:rolleyes:

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Captain_Amazing

With all respect, though, I don’t see that it’s up to them. Crimes are offenses against the state, and the punishment is inflicted by the state, not by individuals. This works both ways, of course, and I’d be saying the same if Ohio didn’t have the death penalty, and the victim’s family wanted him executed.

If the punishment given to Barton is death, it doesn’t matter if it happens a week after sentence, a year after sentence, or 15 years after sentence. What’s important is that the sentence is carried out. It’s not about deterrence and it’s not about blood lust. It’s about making sure that order and state authority is maintained.

deterrence is the only val;id argument for the death penalty, and even then, I think you’d need to overcome a pretty high burden of proof before it made sense.

[Max_Torque]

I’m in favor.

Attention, Texas murderers! Go practice your craft in Illinois, the road has been cleared for you!

[Captain_Amazing]

@Damuri_Ajashi

deterrence is the only val;id argument for the death penalty, and even then, I think you’d need to overcome a pretty high burden of proof before it made sense.

I disagree with your major premise there. Why is deterrence the only valid argument for the death penalty?

[gonzomax]

Murder is a crime of passion or anger. The perpetrator is not thinking about the death penalty.
Serial killers are nuts and don’t care about the death penalty. There is no deterrence.

[villa]

@gonzomax

Murder is a crime of passion or anger. The perpetrator is not thinking about the death penalty.
Serial killers are nuts and don’t care about the death penalty. There is no deterrence.

Not always. Murder for hire, for example, is a business transaction. Many drug related murders are business related. It is conceivable that there could be a deterrent effect there, though I personally doubt it. (Increasing the likelihood of getting caught has a far greater deterrent effect IMHO).

[Max_Torque]

@gonzomax

Murder is a crime of passion or anger. The perpetrator is not thinking about the death penalty.
Serial killers are nuts and don’t care about the death penalty. There is no deterrence.

Impulse murders are not generally the kind that get the death penalty. Death penalty cases are ordinarily multiple-felony events or “abandoned and malignant heart” murders, where the person has coldly plotted to kill another.

We can argue about general deterrence if you want, but you can’t deny that the death penalty accomplishes specific deterrence spectacularly: no executed prisoner has ever gone on to harm another human being.

[Magiver]

@donnie_darko

What do you think? Personally I think it’s a great move. I hope every state in America bans it soon, it’s embarrassing that we still put people to death.

I understand there are a lot of psychos out there, but simply getting revenge on them solves nothing.

It’s simply not true that removing (killing) psychos solves nothing. It solves any future murders that the person can commit. People have committed murder in prison and also after being released from prison.
Michael Woodmansee is up for parole this year for good behavior. He killed and ate a neighborhood child. He was caught trying to commit a similar crime. He’s 52 and has plenty of good killing years left in him.

[Argent_Towers]

Yes. People forget that killers can still go on killing in prison. And still go on raping in prison.

Most people seem to think “life sentence” means “locked in a sterile white cell in isolation for the rest of your life.” This is not how it is. A life sentence just means you live the rest of your life in the prison population. And that is still a population, despite the fact that it’s inside a prison.

[gonzomax]

@Max_Torque

Impulse murders are not generally the kind that get the death penalty. Death penalty cases are ordinarily multiple-felony events or “abandoned and malignant heart” murders, where the person has coldly plotted to kill another.

We can argue about general deterrence if you want, but you can’t deny that the death penalty accomplishes specific deterrence spectacularly: no executed prisoner has ever gone on to harm another human being.

Recidivism is not the theme. It was deterrence.

[villa]

@Max_Torque

We can argue about general deterrence if you want, but you can’t deny that the death penalty accomplishes specific deterrence spectacularly: no executed prisoner has ever gone on to harm another human being.

It’s not as simple as that, unfortunately. If one sees a deterrent effect in capital punishment, then one has to include the possibility/likelihood that the existence of the death penalty has resulted in extra people being murdered by someone who will face the death penalty.

If you kill one person, and know you are, or may be, facing execution, and the death penalty is more of a deterrent than life in prison, then the rational decision may well be to try to shoot your way out of a situation, to kill all possible witnesses, etc.

Therefore while the person being executed may not murder again after the execution, the fact that he knows he is facing execution may result in a higher level of murder than would have existed absent the possibility of the death penalty.

[Magiver]

@villa

It’s not as simple as that, unfortunately. If one sees a deterrent effect in capital punishment, then one has to include the possibility/likelihood that the existence of the death penalty has resulted in extra people being murdered by someone who will face the death penalty.

If you kill one person, and know you are, or may be, facing execution, and the death penalty is more of a deterrent than life in prison, then the rational decision may well be to try to shoot your way out of a situation, to kill all possible witnesses, etc.

Therefore while the person being executed may not murder again after the execution, the fact that he knows he is facing execution may result in a higher level of murder than would have existed absent the possibility of the death penalty.

without a death sentence then you can easily say there is incentive to kill an unlimited number of people because the sentence is the same. Why kill a Congressman when you can kill Congress. Your sentence is the same, a lifetime subscription to library monthly with 3 square meals a day.

[villa]

@Magiver

without a death sentence then you can easily say there is incentive to kill an unlimited number of people because the sentence is the same. Why kill a Congressman when you can kill Congress. Your sentence is the same, a lifetime subscription to library monthly with 3 square meals a day.

Indeed you could. You’d be wrong, but that has never stopped you before, so please, go ahead and say it.

Try reading what I have said, and try understanding it. It is a simple critique that the often mentioned point “no executed person ever killed again” doesn’t tell the whole story. It is not a commentary on whether or not the death penalty is more or less effective as a crime fighting tool than life without parole, or, indeed, than giving people milk and cookies before bed.

And if you think a high security prison is equivalent to “a lifetime subscription to library monthly with 3 square meals a day” I can only say that you have never been to one, and that spending some time in one would do you good.