Reactions to signing of ban on death penalty are mixed
Gov. Pat Quinn's decision on Wednesday to end capital punishment in Illinois received praise locally from opponents of the death penalty and criticism from supporters of capital punishment.
Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law who nominated former Gov. George Ryan for the Nobel Peace Prize for his moratorium on executions in Illinois, said it was a great day.
"I'm a lifelong Illinoisan and a lifelong abolitionist, and this is a great day for everyone in the state of Illinois," he said. "Gov. Quinn deserves credit for signing the legislation, but we also owe thanks to George Ryan to getting the ball rolling."
Boyle said the death penalty was imposed in ways that were unfair to minorities.
"Of the 167 people Ryan reprieved from death row, two-thirds of them were people of color, and most of them were black," Boyle said.
Boyle said the death penalty was unfairly used on the lower class.
"If you had the money to hire attorneys and do the investigation, the odds of you getting the death penalty were minimal," Boyle said.
Champaign County Sheriff Dan Walsh said he was disappointed with the governor's decision to sign the bill because he believes it removes an incentive for persons already sentenced to life in prison.
"I think there are some circumstances where the death penalty is needed," Walsh said. "If somebody is already doing a life sentence, what incentive is there for the person not to kill another human being? They'll only get another life sentence.
"If there is no further punishment, it creates problems for jail and prison officers and other inmates. I personally think there are crimes where the death penalty is appropriate."
Harvey Welch, an attorney who has defended people charged with the death penalty, said he was pleased with the governor's decision.
"I'm glad the death penalty has been eliminated, because I don't believe in the death penalty," Welch said. "I don't think it is an effective sanction."
Welch said the justice system inconsistently applied the death penalty from one case to another.
"To the loved ones left behind, it is hard to explain their loved one's death doesn't merit a capital offense as opposed to others," Welch said. "Either all murders should merit the death penalty or none of them should, and I don't think any of them should."
Douglas County Sheriff Charlie McGrew said he disagreed with the governor's decision to sign the bill.
"I think he's wrong in doing it because I believe the death penalty deters the severity of a crime that somebody may commit," McGrew said. "Law enforcement's role is to enforce the laws as they are written, and the governor has the option to do what he did. It is my job to enforce the laws that are passed."
Herb Whitlock, whose conviction in connection with the murders of Dyke and Karen Rhoads was later overturned, said he didn't think the governor went far enough.
"He should also pardon me," Whitlock said. "The governor just stopped murder by political corruption, but it sure didn't do anything for me. I don't think he's got the guts. If this governor pardons me, it means he has to turn his back on the Illinois State Police. I'm upset, and it's going to stay that way."
I'm personally upset with this decision. I think once again our government has gone from one extreme to another in their deliberation and decision making. The burden to prove guilt in a court has always been "beyond a reasonable doubt". Why not add the extra standard of "beyond any shadow of a doubt' in order to prescribe death in those cases.
The death penalty should have continued to stand, but maybe with a higher burden of proof in order to be used. For instance.
1. someone who is CLEARLY seen on video tape committing said crime
2. someone who's DNA proves they were the killer.
3. someone who confesses openly IN COURT (meaning they give self evidence, not that written or recorded and possibly coerced confessions wouldn't meet the standard)
4. someone who is the only one that could have done it - i.e. prison fight between two guys, and one guy dies - the other guy did it.
I think irrefutable, beyond any SHADOW of a doubt, should be required to get a death penalty, and yes that would reduce the number sentenced as such. It also would eliminate the one's who are currently being set free because there wasn't irrefutable evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You could also take family (of the victim) requests into consideration. If they are opposed they can state so. In the case of multiple murders/families, each family gets their say and just like "# of charges", the murderer is specifically executed for those that meet all the requirements and the family's blessing is given. For the others, even though it's only a "paper sentence", they are given life without parole.
Let's take that Jared Loughner kid as an example. He's guilty. Too many witnesses. Too much footage of things. Etc. He did it. Give him the death penalty. Put him on the "express lane", and eliminate him as he did those 6 innocent people. The only way he doesn't get death is if he's found not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty but insane. But if found guilty of first degree murder, it shouldn't be too complicated.
I also think that because it would be beyond a shadow of a doubt, the appeals process would be nullified. You've already gone well above and beyond "reasonable doubt" to get to a death penalty in that case.
I applaud the our government for their efforts, but I think this is an overreaction.
You're correct, and hopefully the legislation being drawn up right now to reintroduce it will spell all of this out.
One thing that also needs to be addressed is that it needs to be administered fairly and consistently. A common argument by those opposed is that it is not a deterrent to crime, but if it were administed consistently, you bet it would be. There are too many loopholes and avenues for appeal which allow for far too many criminals to avoid capital punishment, and in my opinion that has been the biggest downfall of the system. Attorneys can file appeal after appeal after appeal and pretty much keep it tied up in the courts indefinitely. But if a criminal knows that if he/she is convicted and his/her life will end, it wil serve as the ultimate deterrent. If one is convicted using the guidelines that you set forth above, they should most definitely get their appeal, and if it holds justice should be adminstered in a timely manner. No more of this "he's been on death row for 18 years" malarkey.
I can understand the points pointed out as to why there SHOULD be death penalty in Illinois, and I can relate somewhat, however, no one has stated why there SHOULDN'T be death penalty in Illinois. Unfortunately, I can probably guess what color the audience is that is responding to the article. If you remember in the article it states "Of the 167 people Ryan reprieved from the death penalty, two-thirds of them were people of color, and most of them were black." Which means that most of the people of color were the ones sitting on death row, waiting for their turn to die. However, it also states in the article, that if you can afford an attorney and pay legal fees, you stand a better chance of not getting sentenced to the death penalty. As we already know, most people of color are living in low to middle income and cannot afford a lawyer, so therefore, they are appointed an attorney free of charge. We also know that these "free" attorney are also not working for the rights of the people, but merely working to get through the day. It bothers me that those who commented are so quick to point out why someone should get the death penalty, but I personally know cases that were committed by people of non-color that were far worse than the crimes that were committed by people of color, however, they did not get the death penalty. So before you decide who should get it and who shouldn't get it, and why we should have it, maybe you should do a little more research to see who was ACTUALLY getting sentenced to death and who was sliding by and missing it and then the numbers will tell you why it was unfair and unjust. Personally, I'm glad they took it away; if you are not going to be fair with everyone, then there should be no way that you can hand-pick who gets it and who don't.
My views have nothing to do with color and I am personally insulted you would insinuate that in your post. My views are color blind. You are arguably more concerned with color than you are with facts or logic, as you must not have bothered to read anything written.
If you read what was written, instead of through a jaded "expect it to be racially motivated" eye, you would see that. If there is IRREFUTABLE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT PROOF of someone's guilt in a murder, then the death penalty should apply. Whether they are black, white, purple or green is NOT the issue. A good lawyer or bad won't affect the outcome.
The bottom line is a MUCH higher standard should exist for death penalty - one that is truly color blind, and "legal blind" - one that is in black and white clear as crystal to see.
The higher percentage of blacks on death row vs whites is arguably the same "higher percentage" of blacks vs whites in prison in general. That is a wholly different issue to be dealt with, and on that I won't disagree that our current system benefits those with more money in general. I don't put it down to black or white and never will. It's about money and who has it and who doesn't.
The death penalty should stand!
My background: White and middle class, family income less than $100000. Just so there is no speculation because I know it matters oh so much to everyone. Ridiculous!
I do not care what the race of the offender is, white, black, Hispanic, or any other…if a person kills with intent they deserve to die!
I went to high school with an individual who made the decision to kill. This disgusting person killed a young couple and then committed necrophilia. The couple did not deserve that and he deserves to die for what he did! I know there are others that have done equal or worse and they too deserve to die! AND GUESS WHAT FOLKS…the person I am talking about was WHITE and from a middle class family. Not black, Hispanic, or something other. I am so tired of all of our problems having the underlying issue being related to race. How about individual accountability over race.
I despise our liberal society that prevents justice from being served. But I suppose I should not even say that because I know not all liberals are bad just like all conservatives are not. I hate that everything and everyone has to be labeled. Almost everything the State of Illinois stands for anymore makes me sick. I wish I could pick up and leave. I am sure I will get a response or two that will tell me I should if I don’t like it here. I wish it was that easy though.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.