|
Council Speaks Out on No Doubt Legislation The following letter to the media was published in the Chicago Sun-Times on May 29, 2005 A just and common sense amendment to the law governing Illinois' death penalty was recently defeated in a Democratically controlled Senate committee. Before the death penalty could be imposed, the bill would have required either a judge or jury to determine "… that the evidence leaves no doubt respecting the defendant's guilt." The Illinois House of Representatives passed similar No Doubt legislation last March. Illinois' notorious death penalty system is nationally known for its colossal failures. There have been more innocent men freed from Illinois' death row than executions. Although several reforms to Illinois' death penalty system have been made since a moratorium on executions was imposed in 2000, the No Doubt law would help ensure that an innocent person is never again placed on death row. There are three phases in a death penalty case. In the guilt phase, a judge or unanimous jury determines whether the defendant is guilty of the offense. The legal standard at the guilt phase is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defendant is convicted, the case proceeds to the eligibility phase where a judge or unanimous jury determines whether one or more of 21 different legal factors exist beyond a reasonable doubt such that the defendant is legally eligible to be sentenced to death. If the defendant is found to be eligible for the death penalty, the case proceeds to sentencing phase where a judge or unanimous jury must determine that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt before a death sentence may be imposed. The No Doubt bill would have added the additional step at the eligibility phase that the judge or unanimous jury find that there is no doubt that the defendant is actually guilty of the crime. This provision would make it less likely for a death penalty to be imposed in several categories of cases that have shown to be particularly prone to error, for example, purely circumstantial cases, cases hinging on eyewitness testimony, and cases supported largely by a confession provided after a lengthy police interrogation. It was reported that the No Doubt bill failed in the Senate because prosecutors lobbied the committee for weeks and portrayed the bill as an effective repeal of the death penalty. One prosecutor was quoted as saying that he opposed the No Doubt bill because, "Only one juror needs to say, 'Look, I know [the defendant] did it ... but I know he's crazy.' So they have this lingering doubt." However, even under current law one juror at the sentencing phase could decide that a defendant's disturbed mental state constituted sufficient mitigating evidence that precluded the imposition of the death penalty. The No Doubt law would simply provide judges and juries with the option of finding the defendant guilty of the crime while withholding the ultimate and irrevocable penalty when absolute certainty of guilt does not exist. Debate continues on whether Illinois should retain or abolish the death penalty. However, all people, including prosecutors, should be able to agree that a person should not be sentenced to death unless there is no doubt of guilt. The No Doubt bill should be revived and passed. Sean Collins-Stapleton
|