A commenter, who goes by Mortimer, said some interesting things in one of his comments on this post. I decided to share it here because it’s something I think is worth discussing publicly.
He writes: “So it comes down to a cigarette butt? In a car he’d been in several times before? This is why I have such a big problem with the death penalty. It should only be used when someone is guilty beyond ANY doubt, but in practice it requires only beyond reasonable doubt.”
Well, first off, I want to say for the record that I don’t agree the verdict in Mr. Reid’s case comes down to a single cigarette butt. I think there’s a lot more to consider than that. But for the purposes of this post, we’ll just agree to disagree.
But more importantly is the distinction he makes between “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” and “guilty beyond ANY doubt.” As he points out, in order to find a person guilty of a crime, the jury or judge must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed said crime. That’s true of all crimes, including murder.
Here’s the question I pose to you all: Should it be a higher standard for death penalty cases? Should a prosecutor be required to eliminate, as Mortimer suggests, ALL doubt of a person’s guilt before finding him/her guilty of a crime for which they could receive the death penalty? Or is the current system (which I go over a bit in this post) effective?
And here’s another question to ponder: Is it even possible to eliminate ALL doubt of a person’s guilt?
What say you, readers?
I don’t think a “no doubt” standard would solve the problem — how does the average juror distinguish between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “beyond any doubt”? Besides, we have 20 — yep, 20 — men exonerated from Illinois death row now. I bet the jurors in most of those cases were convinced beyond any doubt of the deft’s guilt. And in most of those cases we now have proof they were wrong.
I have been watching this case with horrified fascination — it is kind of a Whitman’s Sampler of all the problems that sent those 20 men to death row. Alternate suspects like Terrell Aaron testifying to save their own skins. Jailhouse snitches who claim they are not getting any favors in exchange for the stories they tell. (How can we know until after the trial?) A deft with an IQ of 65 — just smart enough to function in the adult world, but awfully easy for a smarter guy to frame. The only thing we don’t have is an incompetent lawyer — and that’s only because of a state fund that could have its budget cut any time.
Time to get rid of the death penalty. Period.
Given the recent spate of death row inmates being exonerated by DNA evidence, I would support a higher standard for imposing a death sentence. However, the process in Illinois already has an “out” – a jury can convict based on a reasonable doubt standard and then eliminate the death penalty as an option. The burden of proof in the trial phase should remain as it is.
Please!!! Mostly all of those exonerated were done so with the technological advances of today’s forensic capabilities. The death penalty is a very good deterrent to these types of heinous crimes. When these criminals realize that they will be put to death, and not just have to go to prison and have their needs taken care of for the rest of their lives on the taxpayer’s dime, only then might they stop for moment before thinking about committing these types of crimes. As far as Reid’s IQ, he has been downplaying his intelligence in order to get out of paying the consequences of his actions. If you would have been there and listened to the testimony, you would realize much more than is being portrayed in the news or on this blog. Although Mr. Mayeroff is doing a fair job, there is no possible way to relay everything that has been going on in that courtroom. Someone with an IQ of 65 couldn’t possibly be one of the largest drug dealers in the Quad Cities. He has been collecting Social Security Disability for supposedly being legally blind, but yet he can drive and accurately see, at 10:00 p.m. at night, Mr. Robinson gesturing for his cohort to go around to the other side from the driver’s seat of his van?!?!? Is he blind, or isn’t he?? He has been living off of SSI, and ADDITIONALLY been tagged as one of the biggest drug dealers in the QC. Grow up, people. Elijah “Ape Man” Reid is the one who committed this crime. If you would have seen him testify, you would have had a clearer picture of his guilt. There is WAY more here than meets the eye…the quicker they convict, they quicker Quad Citians can rest easy that at least one more murderer is off the street. These murders were BRUTAL…and completely deserve the death penalty. I’m just sickened that Illinois has a moratorium on the death penalty. Maybe soon we will get a decent Govenor who will smarten up, take a cue from some of the other states who regularly put these types of people to death, reinstate the death penalty, and start the executions. Then, sit back and watch the crime rate drop…
The death penalty harms our system of justice.
@smarter: The question I have for you is simply this: You say that those exonerated were so exonerated because of technological advances in forensic science … but is that a bad thing? You seem to be suggesting that even innocent people on death row should not be exonerated simply because technology has advanced. And I don’t agree with that. Shouldn’t they get every chance to prove their innocence? After all, it’s their lives we’re talking about, right?
Another question for you: If the death penalty is such a deterrent to heinous crimes as you say, how come people keep getting sentenced to death? And for that matter, how come such heinous crimes keep happening? I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong about it being a deterrent; I simply want you to go a little further in your explanation.
Finally, 2 questions for George: What do you mean? How does it harm our justice system?
No, Bill. Those exonerated SHOULD have been exonerated. What I am saying is that as far as science and forensics have come, most of those exonerated were sentenced BEFORE this technology existed. I DO believe many that were sentenced to death were done so wrongfully, and quite possibly done so not based upon hard evidence, but the lack thereof…which we now have access to. THAT IS NOT SO IN THIS CASE. One lies and the other swears by it, in this case, and NOT ONE OF THEM is credible. They have ALL admitted to lying to protect themselves from day one, and there is ONE that is continuing to do so. As I stated, if you were sitting in that courtroom and listened to all the evidence, it would be crystal clear. Yes, the defense is doing an adequate job in casting “reasonable doubt”. That is completely unfortunate, and very frustrating that there is a very good possiblity that scum like Reid could go free because each are blaming the other. How many of these posters have ever served on a jury…let alone one that involves capital murder or the death sentence?? NEVER judge, NEVER say what you would do if place in any given situation, because you will NEVER know until you are placed there…and 99.9% of these posters were NOT in the courtroom to hear the evidence OR the testimony.
As far as the death penalty being a deterrent…only a FRACTION of those sentenced to the death penaly actually have that sentence carried out. With those odds, you could win big in Vegas. After the appeals and everything is said and done, it would be years, if not a LIFETIME, before they are actually executed. Personally, I think that those who ADMIT their guilt and sentenced to death should be executed immediately. Just look at the states who actually regularly carry out the death sentence…it actually IS a deterrent. It’s like raising a child…if they know that there is no consequences, there is no deterrent for them to refrain from or STOP the behavior that would cause the negative consequence. Even someone with a 65 IQ KNOWS that the chances of them ACTUALLY getting executed if sentenced to do so is MINUTE. They get their meals, health, dental, room and board paid for, for years and years and years, or the ACLU or some like agency steps in stating that “their rights were violated”. THAT is a luxury that is not afforded to many others living in the United States. It doesn’t harm our justice system in the least. OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A JOKE. The only ones afforded justice is the accused, rather than the VICTIMS…who are all too often forgotten. The accused and those convicted aren’t forgotten, are they? They get basic rightsand need provided for, some even MORE than basic…none of which their victims are ever allowed~ever again. Let’s not even BEGIN a discussion of what the victim’s families are burdened to live with for the rest of their lives.
Good points all, Smarter. Could you elaborate a bit on why you think the justice system is a joke, though? And what should be done to fix it?
Pingback: Another question « The Courtroom Insider
Guilty. Thank God! Now let the judgemental people come forth who weren’t in the courtroom to give their uneducated opinion about poor, “mentally retarded”, abused-as-a-child, never got enough love as a child, victim-of-society Elijah Reid. The man who cold-bloodedly and without concience shot two men TWICE in the back of the head, bragged about it, tried to blame someone else, and hasn’t missed a meal or night’s sleep since. Now, on to the penalty and appeal phase. These appeals could go on INDEFINITELY. Regardless of what your opinion is regarding the victims is, they are, first and foremost, victims, and did NOT deserve to be executed in the grotesque manner that they were killed. You can dress is up in a suit and try to make it pretty for the jury, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…it’s a DUCK. Thank God the jury was there every day in that courtroom, saw through all the BS the defense was trying to peddle, and came to the only correct conclusion.
Now no death penalty option. Probably for the best, especially considering that it is contingent upon not appealing the case, and will save the taxpayer’s money with the never-ending appeal process. Fantastic news. Especially considering since that moron Ryan placed a moratorium on all Illinois Death Penaty cases, and that death penalty case are AUTOMATICALLY appealed. Lock him away, throw away the key, and let the victim’s healing begin!
I was in the courtroom. I walked away wondering if he did it. I think Terronez wonders too. Which is why I think he pulled the death penalty off the table. That jury was going to convict regardless, so I guess I do agree there’s problems with the judicial system, but other than that, we don’t agree on much.
Mortimer, you are completely dilusional if you think for one second that our esteemed State’s Attorney was sitting in that courtroom, and after the defense finished his closing arguments, thought to himself: “Wow! That was completely convincing!! Maybe I AM prosecuting the wrong person! Reid is completely INNOCENT! I think I will just withdraw the whole ‘death penalty” thing…that will help me sleep better tonight”. Duh! He is a brilliant man, who I have had the great pleasure to get to know personally. After ALL of the testimony, you STILL think that Reid is INNOCENT?!?!?!?! Or, were you only there for bits and pieces??? I’m sorry that your jury experience was so bad, and you feel the way you do. Fortunately for MOST Americans, jurors usually take their duty more seriously than that. All I can say is, I hope you never serve on a jury ever again…or VOTE, for that matter. The sixties must have been really good to you, that’s for sure. After listening to all of the testimony, and still come to the conclusion that Reid didn’t execute those men, you must have the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines.
Hey, Smarter … chill out a bit, please. You make some interesting points and it’s cool that you’re defending your position so vehemently, but knock off the personal attacks. I approved your last comment, but quit calling Mortimer names and insulting him. Keep it civil, please.