Steve, it was George Ryan who suspended the Death Penalty in Illinois and he did so after 13 inmates on Death Row had been found innocent, usually because of work by students and journalists. The last before the moratorium was found innocent 48 hours before his scheduled execution.

Most of those found innocent were minorities who received poor counsel. The system was/is biased against low-income minorities and was thus suspended. If not wanted to support a system that puts innocent people on death row and most likely in some cases to death is "namby-pamby," they so be it.

As far as the "moral objection" to executing admitted killers, well at least one of those set free from death row in Illinois was an "admitted" killer who was coerced into a confession. And, myself, like many others including the late pope, oppose the death penalty because killing a killer does not solve the problem. The death penalty does not deter. When the option of life-without parole exists (which is no more expensive than an execution), what's the need for the death penalty?

Steve, I really don't understand your fascination with violent crime. At this point I'm wondering if you or someone you know lost someone in a violent act.

The actions you call for against these offenders aren't even reasonable. Yes, what Hobbs did was extremely terrible - but we can't lock up everyone forever as you seem to think we should.

The criminal court system has several purposes - its punishment, a deterent, and occasionally rehabilitation. You're obviously not asking for more rehabilitation even though that might help people such as Hobbs that started out with much smaller offenses.

There is absolutely no proof that the death penalty prevents these crimes from occuring. Go ahead, find some. In fact - "during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty." (from amnesty international)

The death penalty is vengeful act. It is most likely to be enacted in highly emotional cases where the defendants are poor and poorly represented. Its also too bloody expensive.

I really don't understand where your rage comes from over this topic. It certainly hinders your logical reasoning.

I stand corrected Tom, I don't know why I put Allen when I knew it was Ryan. Little slip there. But you are wrong that the death penalty doesn't deter. It deters the only person it needs to deter -- the killer. That killer won't live to kill again. It makes no difference whether it deters anyone else. It is meant as a punishment for that one killer.

Matt,

Talk about emotional Matt, what about the idea that the death penalty is an act of vengance? That's about the most irrational, emotional defense of an indefensible position (being against the death penalty) that I can think of.

As for my argument, I'm sorry if you can tell the difference between making a good argument forcefully and emotionalism, but the simple fact of the matter is you anti-capital punishment folks are arguing a weak position and one of the oldest canards in the book is to ascribe some ulterior motive -- in this case emotionalism and an obsession with violent crime -- to the person on the other side of the argument. That doesn't make your poor argument any better.

First of all, quoting Amnesty International on the homicide rate is like trusting the fox to make sure the chickens are okay. I prefer the FBI's uniform crime statistics myself and they show that violent crime has declined drastically over the past decade and a half. And even if it hadn't, the effect of the death penalty as a deterent is immaterial. It is the only sufficient punishment for certain crimes. Killing your daughter and her friend by stabbing them to death would be one of those crimes.

And your "expense" argument is another ridiculous excuse as well. Why must we spend a lot of money appealing and re-appealing a death penalty case where the verdict is cut and dried as it is here? Give this guy one appeal then execute him.

As far as rehabiltating Hobbs goes, let's put you in a room with him one on one and you go for it bud. If I recall what I just read in preparing this piece correctly, he got off to a hell of a start way back in 1990 because his first offense was stabbing someone in the gut for wich he did all of couple days. This guy was a lost cause from day one.

And while we're on the subject of rehabilitation, many of the folks who are supposedly rehabilitated are the ones we end up having to deal with later. The Bentleys, Couey, the guy who killed Sara Lunde, the list goes on and on. Some people are just evil and need to be dealt with that way. And the way to deal with them is to make sure they don't live to rape and kill again.

There certainly were not 13 death row inmates found innocent in Illinois. The number was 6, likely less. That would be around 2% of the 300 sentenced to death in Illinois.

Too many, but the 13 is just nonsense.

Review "The Death Penalty Debate in Illinois", John J. Kinsella, J.D., DCBA Brief (Online),         June  2000, at               http://www.dcba.org/brief/junissue/2000/art010600.htm

(The link doesn't work sometimes)

The need for the death penalty is obvious. Justice.

In about 7500 US cases, since 1973, the jury chose the death penalty over a life sentence, because they found execution to be more just for that case.

Of course the death penalty deters. What prospective negative outcome doesn't deter or alter behavior?

The number was 6, likely less. That would be around 2% of the 300 sentenced to death in Illinois.

Last I checked it was 17, to put it in persective only 8 were actually executed since the death penalty became legal again.

And quick question how many innocent people is an acceptable amount for you?

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/deathpen.html

Read your own friggin' links before you utter your bullshit:

In the last four years, 17 Death Row inmates in the nation have been found innocent and freed. Seven of those men were in Illinois.The 17 number was NATIONWIDE.....and 7 in ILLINOIS...according to YOUR link.

How many innocent children is an acceptable amount to YOU?

Steve - You accuse me of submitting an illogical, emotional post, yet your posts are nothing but repetitive declaraion.

Once again, why this fascination with violent crime? I think its perfectly reasonable to ask this. "Conservative New & Opinion" consists of far more discussion of violent crimes than political discussion usually does. You seem to be the editor on the crime beat.

If you don't like my amnesty international statistics then find something that contradicts them. Show me statistics that support the death penalty.

My expense argument is completely logical. Your counter argument is to remove the appeals process - even though it saves innocent lives. Further, have you been privy to the court proceeding in these cases? Why do you think that what you've seen on tv and read in the paper is sufficient to short curcuit someone's right to due process?

You're also apparently completely against rehabilitation. Hobbs spent 60 days in jail for his first stabbing. Eventually his crimes earned him ten _years_ probation and two _years_ in jail. The system obviously had their eye on this guy - he didn't slip through the cracks. I would be interested to see what kind of treatment he receieved while in prison. Certainly, if a bit more treatment would have prevented these murders it would have been well worth it.

You never make an argument for the death penaly over lifetime incarceration. Certainly, someone isn't going to commit another crime if they're incarcerated for life.

---

Doug - If you READ YOUR OWN LINK you'll find that 13 men were certainly freed from death row. Over one in twenty five inmates sent to death row had their case overturned. The link you point to simply distinguishes between not guilty and innocent. Further, these are cases where the accused are being given terminal setences even though the evidence is murky at best.

If you're looking to stop little girls from being raped and murdered... the death penalty isn't going to help your cause. Steve, I understand your anger but the death penalty is simply not a preemptive solution to murder. The death penalty can only be enacted once the murder has already occurred. Sure, the death penalty will prevent the condemned from ever killing again. So will sentencing him to a maximum-security prison for life without parole. In some cases, capital punishment can actually work against your cause. I know you’re lifting your eyebrow at that statement, but hear me out. There are some instances where the death penalty is the only option laid on the table. Either the accused dies or he walks free. Now that is a pretty hefty decision to lay at the feet of a handful of jurors, some of whom might be death penalty opponents. I have seen interviews with former jurors who had deliberated on death penalty cases. For some, it was easy. For others, the decision still haunts them. Asking a person to decide whether a man lives or dies will invariably affect their judgment. It only takes one juror to hang the jury. It’s not nearly as hard a decision to put someone in prison for life.

The death penalty is no more a deterrent than life imprisonment is. Steve, I know your take on that is that it deters the one person who counts, but how can you deter something that has already happened? The only way the death penalty can even be an issue is if a murder has already occurred, thus no deterrence. Now, back to my original statement. 10 of the 12 states that do not permit capital punishment also have crime rates below the national average. In contrast, exactly 50% of the states condoning capital punishment have crime rates above the national average. The death penalty is doing nothing to deter crime that life imprisonment is.

Steve, you say that death penalty opponents are soft on crime. I don’t agree. I personally feel that those who murder and rape little girls should be locked up for life, given no jailhouse privileges, no television, no books… nothing except a 4 x 6 concrete cell, a piss pot and a very uncomfortable bed. These convicted murderers need to be dealt with harshly, but I am not willing to sacrifice my sense of morality for the death penalty. If I were on a jury deliberating a death penalty case, I would first try to excuse myself. If that were not an option, then I would hang the jury. I just don’t want the burden of someone else’s death on my conscience. If it were a case of life imprisonment and I believed the accused was guilty, I’d say throw away the key.

DNA evidence provides a 100% assurance of accuracy? Bull. DNA evidence provides nothing more than a link between the DNA donor and either the crime scene or the crime victim. It’s a clue that needs to be corroborated just like any other clue. Man has sex with woman. Woman later found raped and murdered in alleyway. Rapist used a condom. Who’s incriminated by DNA evidence? DNA is a strong tool to be sure, but it’s not a conclusive tool. Often forensics doesn’t even turn up any DNA evidence, meaning a dependency on DNA evidence is potentially destructive to a case.

Our justice system is a game. It shouldn’t be, but it is. Prosecutors have one goal. Convict. Just like any good employee, prosecutors want to impress their bosses. How do they do that? They win cases. They win as many cases as they can. It some cases, justice can take a back seat to ambition. You want to have a good political career? Go for the death penalty every time. It makes you look tough on crime. Voters love that. Evidence? If it hurts the case… discredit it. Don’t just test it, destroy it…, well, not literally. Witnesses? If they hurt your case… discredit them. Make them look like whores and drug dealers. Juries hate whores and drug dealers. As Winston Churchill would say… “Victory at all costs.” In addition, prosecutors are often more experienced than public defenders. Who wants to be a public defender anyway? I bet public defenders are the crème of the crop, a la Harvard Law. Did Johnny Cochran do much public defending? Why is it that death row inmates are primarily low-income minorities anyway? Why is it that Illinois and Florida release more death row inmates than are actually executed? I won’t even discuss those people who have been executed who were later found (not by the states of course) to have been innocent or evidence has been uncovered that casts serious doubt as to their guilt. That’s a whole argument unto itself.

The death penalty is about retribution… vengeance. Nothing more. Often times, it isn’t even the family of the victim that wants the retribution. It’s the general public. There have been families that have fought to have their loved one’s murderer removed from death row. Families are invited to witness the execution. There is only one reason a family would need to witness and execution and that is to satisfy a thirst for vengeance.

Steve, in closing my long rambling… I agree with you that there has to be a better way to prevent innocent children from dying. That should be the focus of your energy and anger. That’s what you need to be discussing. Once the death penalty becomes an issue, it’s already too late.

.and 7 in ILLINOIS...according to YOUR link.

You got me, shoulda been more careful.

Still more then 6 btw why arent you angry at the other guy?

I forget where I got the 13 from, I can look for it later. But I believe it was 13 found innocent since the 1970s.

Funny....because the "other guy" isn't a proven childish habitual liar here (and his link was much more reliable than yours, not that you have a habit of actually reading other people's links, let alone your own)....simple answer for a simple question.

and his link was much more reliable than yours,

how so?

"Of course the death penalty deters. What prospective negative outcome doesn't deter or alter behavior?"

This is something I really disagree with. Do you really think the guy who killed his daughter and friend was thinking about whether or not he'd get the death penalty for his actions?

People who kill others usually don't think about the consequences. Do you really think there has been a scenerio where someone is about to kill someone and thinks "there's no death penalty in this state, so I'll only get life in prison if I'm caught."

OR

"There is a death penalty in this state, I think I won't kill this person, the penalty is too stiff."

The fact of the matter is, if someone if weighing the consequences of killing someone, they'll are either NOT going to kill them or banking on not getting caught. The distinction between life in prison and being put to death has never saved anyone's life, I don't think. (obviously, that's pretty impossible to prove."

The death penalty doesn't deter future crimes, and locking them away for life _does_.

You should review information about death penalty cases and DNA, how it's neither 100% nor fair...look at Oaklahoma; the primary forensics lab in Oaklahoma was found to have fabricated, falsely reported, and plain flubbed forensics testing. They did so sometimes to hide, and sometimes just due to, incompetence. The head of the lab testified in cases about absolute certainty, and was lying.

Further, most states don't have adequate representation for people accused of death penalty eligible crimes; HBO did an ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS documentary on a young teenager who was identified by the husband of the victim as his wife's murderer. The catch? They paraded the kid, by himself, up to the poor man who had just lost his wife of 40 odd years and say, "did this kid do it?" There was a "confession" signed only on the _back_ of the actual document, which up to the bottom of the front, was penned by the _detective_... The only reason this young man's life was saved was due to very good pro bono attorneys who agreed to take his case.

These injustices are not rare... I'm noooo fan of criminals; I have no problem locking them up forever and they should be; some of these murderers would have been locked away forever already with a 3-strikes law in place. Some of them were just committing first offenses.

But once you kill someone, their chances to prove innocence are lost. You put the power of innocent lives (lest we forget, innocent til proven guilty) in the hands of corrupt police; perhaps who aren't framing someone per se, but framing the evidence just to "make sure" the "right guy" is convicted. Who knows. But the State should never have a say over life and death; it's run by people, people who can be and are corrupt, doesn't change the outcome of victims in the past nor the future, if the right punishment is metted out.

Do not forget; one common theme to a couple of these murders is that WOMEN, MOTHERS, let these men into their homes and most certainly were aware of their violent propensities. Does anyone doubt why that dear girl didn't want to go home on time? What faced her if she had? Probably just more abuse she had already been facing in the month the monster had been taken in by her horribly irresponsbile, and equally evil, mother.