Man confirms death penalty banned, then kills ex-girlfriend

The death penalty was banned for Illinois just last March. Here is what the governor said when it was repealed...

http://illinoisobserver.org/2011/03/09/statement-from-gov-pat-quinn-on-illinois-death-penalty/

As a state, we cannot tolerate the executions of innocent people because such actions strike at the very legitimacy of a government. Since 1977, Illinois has seen 20 people exonerated from death row. Seven of those were exonerated since the moratorium was imposed in 2000. That is a record that should trouble us all. To say that this is unacceptable does not even begin to express the profound regret and shame we, as a society, must bear for these failures of justice.

About a month later, a man apparently researches to confirm that Illinois did repeal the death penalty, then drives there to murder his ex-girlfriend...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/killer-saw-illinois-death_n_849706.html

According to suburban Chicago prosecutors, Demetry Smirnov verified that Illinois had banned its death penalty before traveling here to murder his ex-girlfriend.

Two weeks ago, according to theChicago Tribune, Smirnov allegedly drove to the Chicago area from BC, stopping in Seattle to purchase a gun and ammunition. He arrived here last week, found Vesel's address on the internet, and tracked her by gluing a GPS device to her car, prosecutors say.

The state's attorney also said that Smirnov researched the state's death penalty laws before coming to Illinois for the murder. Governor Pat Quinn recently signed a bill abolishing the death penalty; Berlin has been an outspoken critic of the capital punishment ban.

"Make sure Pat Quinn gets a copy of this story," Berlin said

Any thoughts?

The death penalty might not be a deterent, but the lack of a death penalty apparently is an encouragement.

I doubt he'll find life in prison much of an improvement.

I do think the death penalty is somewhat of a deterrent for murder (I could go into it further), and it certainly would be a huge deterrent for other "crimes". How many single people do you think you'd see in the diamond lane if there were a death penalty for it (yes, I exagerate as an example)?

But I still oppose it for a couple of reasons. One is I don't see very many rich people or celebrities getting the death penalty when they can get the best lawyers representing them.

Second, we've seen far too many people on death row being later found innocent.

If there were way to find a person guilty of murder beyond a doubt (rather than reasonable doubt), I'd still support it I guess. But not sure how to do it unless it's on video. But as we see with conspiracy people, even videos are questioned.

Interesting article, as more states drop the death penalty, it wll be intersting to see if crime increases for them.

I used to be pro-death penalty but because of the appeal system, it is actually cheaper giving the bad guys life sentences. In California, most people on death row die of old age. Is crime higher there than in Texas where criminals realize they do have a pretty good chance of being put down.

The death penalty may serve as a deterrent to a FEW killers, but only a few. Most murders are crimes of passion and the rest....well probably they don't think they are going to get caught so why worry about the penalty? I really can't imagine that anyone is sitting around thinking, well, should I kill this person if I will be executed as opposed to life in prison?

If this is supposed to be an argument for the death penalty, it's not a very convincing one to me.

Just a guess, but aren't most of the death row exhonnerations due to DNA evidence, technology that wasn't available at the time of conviction? That seems to be what I remember as the common thread in the stories I've read.

So, if the DNA evidence is good enough to point out they have the wrong guy, it's probably also good enough to prove that they've got the right guy.

The death penalty saves money in the long run. Then we don't have to pay room and board for the rest of person's life. Still, I am bothered by the number of cases where an innocent person was put to death.

The purpose of capital punishment is to punish someone for the injury they have inflicted, not to deter them from causing injury. The punishment for the injury should always be measured against the injury that was done. You should not, as an example, take someone's eye in punishment for them injuring a tooth, but neither should you take a tooth in punishment when the injury inflicted was the loss of an eye.

What this animal has done is the best argument for why the punishment should always be a possibility. There are injuries inflicted for which even death of the one who inflicted the injury is insufficient punishment, though it is the severest punishment available to us. If the severest punishment is the loss of liberty, what punishment remains when the loss of liberty is insufficient punishment? Is the loss of liberty for the remainder of one's natural life sufficient punishment when the injury they did involved taking the life of another in a malevolent and cruel fashion? If one is already being punished for the remainder of their natural life for the injury they inflicted, how do you further punish them if they continue to cause injury if not by ending their life?

PS, hate to tell you, but that was the OLD TESTAMENT rule. And even if I didn't consider the Old Testament view of the penal system a little bit, um, dated, taken in context all that idea was propounding was that the authorities had no right to inflict MORE punishment on the criminal than the harm that was caused by the criminal. In other words, it's not nice to put someone to death for stealing a loaf of bread.

In any case, you'd really be stretching that biblical principle to suggest it's an argument for capital punishment.