Illinois Governor Commutes All Death Sentences

Blatham, the fact of the matter is that this governor took it upon himself and went against the people of his state. Single handedly ignoring the system that had been established by people and lawmakers over the years because of his own belief.

The death penalty isn't about revenge. Revenge has nothing at all to do with it. It's about justice. Why should a murderer get to live when his victim doesn't. You people who are against the death penalty seem to care more about the criminals than the actual victims.

It doesn't matter if the death penalty affects the crime rate. Its about getting these people out of our system permanently. You mess up bad enough you're out of this world for good and the tax payers don't have to take care of you anymore.

And I know you will bring up the argument that it cost more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. That's a load of crap. It only costs more because of the appeals process which gets ridiculous at some point. Now that we have DNA evidence it should weed out those who are truly innocent and eliminate any negative consequences of the death penalty.

Thus, if a neighborhood child carelessly throws a rock (or intentionally throws a rock) and that rock hits your son in the eye, blinding him, it would be 'justice' for you (or the courts) to then blind the child who threw the rock. Do I have your notion of 'justice' right here?

I have a problem with that comparison because your talking about kids. I don't believe in an eye for an eye in all cases. The death penalty isn't a blanket punishment. It's only done for the most vicious crimes. If a kid does a vicious crime than no, I don't endorse the death penalty.

The punishment has to fit the crime and in some cases the death penalty is the appropriate punishment, in some cases it's not.

The death penalty isn't the same barbaric custom that chops off the hand of the pesant who steals a loaf of bread. It's only reserved for the worse criminals!

Then make the example your adult sister as the one who threw the rock, or who was hit by the rock.

If your premise is that causing a death justly deserves forfeiting one's life, then why should such 'balance' not apply to the rock throwing case?

What is 'barbaric'? Impaling a head on a pike at the city gates was once thought a reasonable punishment, as was drawing and quartering. Can you define barbaric in some objective manner, not established by custom?

We're talking about two entirely different levels of crime here. If someone intentionally throws a rock and blinds someone than no they shouldn't be blinded themselves. They should get some jail time and maybe a severe law suit against them but not blinded themselves. If they kill someone as a result of intentionally throwing a rock than maybe the death penalty can be looked at but not automatically given. Only if it was a vicious crime. If they not only threw the rock but also repeatedly beat the victim over the head than the death penalty becomes more appropriate. But let the courts decide. Don't take it away in all cases.

You've got two different things going on in your argument (and in your thinking) and it's fouling you up.

First, you have the notion of equity or balance between crime and punishment...an aspect of justice.

But second, you set aside one class of crime - vicious murder - and suggest that it somehow ought to be thought of differently, and punished differently. But why? Other than your disgust at the inhumanity of it? What if someone else felt their disgust at a blinding justified a penalty of blinding the perpetrator?

As we know that capital punishment has no correlation with decrease in that crime, there is no social benefit in applying that punishment. Are you suggesting there is some psychological benefit? If so, to whom? And why would that be important?

OK, than we'll just give the death penalty to everyone who commits a crime. Even for speeding tickets. You absolutely have to have different levels of punishment for different severities of crime. Maybe they do things differently up there in Canada but down here we believe that the punishment must fit the crime. One blanket form of justice is inefficient. The criminal justice system is very complex and we need different levels of punishment.

As I have already stated, it doesn't matter if the death penalty affects the crime rate. That's not why we have it. We have it so that justice can can bring some closure to the victims families. As long as someone sits in jail there's always a chance they can get out through some loophole. There would be no closure to the crime. It's not revenge. If it were revenge we would have the victims families throwing the switch themselves.

Now as far as someone being punished financially, that's yet another appropriate punishment for the level of crime committed. If someone takes your eye you deserve compensation. Make them pay for that eye out of their bank account. Very fair!

We have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world because it does take into consideration the various levels of crime and has various corresponding levels of punishment. It isn't always perfect but there's no justice system in the world that is perfect.

You are missing my point. Of course, crimes vary in severity or destructiveness. And so, a 'just' system would have to take these variations into account. OK? Stealing an apple ought to be punished less severely than armed robbery.

But you've argued that vicious murders ought to be put to death. You consider, in this case, that 'just' must mean an eye for an eye...a life taken ought to entail the murderer's life is taken too. But it seems that one case of vicious murder is the only one of its sort...all other crimes (like the blinding example) ought not to receive a punishment of the same nature as the crime.

How is it that that one case is different?

I don't think that all vicious crime that results in death should be punishable by death. There are circumstances that we haven't looked at yet. Maybe the killer is mentally ill; in that case life under lockup would be appropriate.

We have judges and juries that decide when the death penalty is appropriate. That's why two people convicted of similar crimes may have two different sentences. I like the way the system works, what I don't like is when individuals abuse their power and interfere with the system by enforcing their personal beliefs. This gets us back to square one about why we are talking about this tonight. We should be debating that and not the right and wrongs of the death penalty. Isn't it an abuse of power to ignore a justice system that works and force your own belief on people because you're in a high position and nobody can stop you?

I bet of you were to vote nationally on the death penalty in the US is would overwhelmingly be passed as an appropriate punishment. But unfortunately our opinions don't matter. We elect people who think for us and we our selves are reduced to polls on CNN.

Which is it to be? Majority opinion or judge/jury? And is majority opinion how we ought to establish all matters of justice? Majority opinion once thought that hanging blacks for touching a white woman was proper justice. The courts were instrumental in overturning racist laws. Were they wrong to do so?

Blatham, you're taking my post out of context. You can't have citizens vote in trials! It's entirely two different things. One decides how the system works and the other decides the the trial within that system. In trials we have juries which is still the people making the decision. The judge just enforces it. Why am I even debating this with you. You know what I meant in the first place.

I'm confused. Are you an American or a Canadian? Don't take this personally but if you are a Canadian why are you concerned with the American justice system? It doesn't apply to you...

rover

I am Canadian, but America is a particular interest of mine. And of course, the similarities between Canada and the US are much greater than are any differences, our legal systems descending from the Brits for example (though Quebec civil law is based on French civil law). We don't allow capital punishment here, though there are voices arguing to reinstate it.

Let me tell you what I think, and perhaps you can spot where you disagree and why.

First...there is no evidence to suggest capital punishment is effective as a deterent. There is much evidence to suggest it is NOT effective as a deterent. So that's not an opinion, that's a pretty solid fact.

So, what justification can a community have for applying it? You proffered that it provides 'justice'. Yet if you define 'justice' in this manner, you are defining it as tooth for tooth. But I think you've agreed that such a notion of justice is really rather barbaric and uncivilized.

You then suggested that in the case of a particularly ugly murder, capital punishment would perhaps be OK. But you are still left with the same problem...why would it be just in this one case and not others?

Then you suggested that it is inappropriate for someone like a governor to commute the death penalty where that penalty exists in the state. Your reasoning is, I guess, that the penalty has been established by the political process and therefore he is throwing a wrench into the gears. But of course, that governor has the legal right to do exactly what he has done, and that right has been established by the same political process. Get me?

I'm not sure, but you might also argue that once a legislature has established this penalty, that the courts ought not to have a say on the matter. But of course, the courts have a role to play in your system (and ours), and partly that is to ensure that fashion doesn't trump constitutional fundamentals.

What? Is he suddenly getting an attack of the guilts or did he get a terminal prognosis and wants to make amends before he passes to ensure his transition to a better place in the afterlife?

I think that should have gone up for a general vote by the public, not a clearing of his desk or sweeping it all under the rug. He should not have such blanket privileges.