Jury Rejects Death Penalty for Man Who Killed Seven

By Jeralyn, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:18:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A Chicago jury today returned a verdict recommending life without parole for Juan Luna, whom it convicted last week of murdering seven people at a restaurant.

The sentencing deliberations took only two hours. Luna was 18 at the time of the killings. The defense argument:

Today, during closing arguments in the defense portion of the death penalty phase, Luna's lawyer Burch asked jurors to disregard prosecutors' portrayal of Luna as a cold-blooded monster.

"The state portrayed Juan Luna as an evil individual who has no heart. … They are trying to dehumanize him, make him less than a person and then step on him,'' Burch said as he stomped his foot in the courtroom. "He's a human being. The same blood flowing through his heart and veins is flowing through ours."

"I'm asking you to lean toward life, lean toward life because justice has been served,'' Burch said." Death is not the answer, taking life for a life. … Temper justice with mercy. I'm pleading with you to express mercy."

Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune says the case is a signal it's time to end the death penalty.

More...

Now that he has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (story), it will be incoherent, disproportional, bizarre, to sentence others down the line to die for lesser crimes.

Proportion and balance are fundamental to the idea of justice. This evening's decision by a Cook County jury illustrates starkly the long-standing problem of arbitrariness in the adminstration of the death penalty.

Lawmakers should end this absurd practice and let the rest of us be done with it.

Update: An explanation of the short jury deliberations: One juror held out. The juror was also a holdout during the guilt phase. Looks like they may have made a deal, promising the holdout that s/he voted for guilt, they'd go along with his or her vote for life.

< Details of the Compromise Immigration Reform Bill | Berkeley's New Homeless Plan: Arrest Them for Smoking >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Jury Rejects Death Penalty for Man Who Killed Seven | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Dehumanisation (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by HK on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:54:59 AM EST

and retribution are the two key reasons that the death penalty continues in the US. It may be an uneasy and difficult to accept concept, but it is likely that Juan Luna has people who love him and positive aspects to his personality. That does not lessen his crime or make up for the live he took; the victims also likely had people who loved them and positive aspects to their personalities. It does, however, make it just as wrong for his life to be taken as it was for theirs.

Death row inmates, like all human beings, are multi-faceted. There is both light and shade within them. While it would be nice to think that human beings are not capable of brutal murders and so these people must be monsters, the fact is that they are not. They are more like the rest of us than we like to imagine. Those who demonise them devalue themselves. Murderers should always be brought to justice, but their lives should never be taken in the name of it.

Straw man (1.00 / 2) (#2)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:45:29 AM EST

Dehumanisation and retribution are the two key reasons that the death penalty continues in the US.

This looks to be a straw man. The key reason is the assurance of eliminating repeat offenses. That is something that life in the slammer has sadly and tragically not been able to provide. Ending the death penalty will result in the deaths of more innocents.


You misinterpret the point. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by HK on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:26:18 AM EST

I was not stating the reason for the existance of the death penalty but the reason for its continuance, that is, public support of it. If the general public saw death row inmates as human beings and set aside notions of vengence, then support for capital punishment would drop significantly because there are other sentences that can meet the other criteria for punishment. The media is partly to blame for this, often keen to stir up frenzied outrage; this can be seen most in local press when the victim is from the area. They naturally find the crime monstrous, but misguidedly assume that makes the perpetrator a monster.

However, even if I were referring to the legal reasons for the death penalty, citing retribution would not be a straw man; retribution is very much a part of the criminal justice system in the US.

Decon gives more information in his comment, which I won't bother rehashing, not least because he probably has a better knowledge than I do on these specific issues.

: Let me make clear (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:00:50 AM EST

that I do not reject retribution as an acceptable goal of a criminal justice system. Government exists as a means to express the will of the people. A government system that ignores the will of a large segment of the population is non-repsonsive and can expect that the people will then use individual actions to express their will in a less fair, less orderly, less consistent and more chaotic and violent fashion.
If people believe the government does not provide punishment sufficient to exact justice for crimes it will breed distrspect for the law and vigilantism.
I accept that retribution is one of the purposes of punishment and that it is a purpose supported by an overwhelmingly huge majority of people everywhere on Earth throughout history. Even if rejected the morality of retribution (which I don't) I would fear the consequences of abandoning it.
I just think that the death penalty should be abolished because in an imperfect system it cannot be fairly and consistently applied across the population of the guilty and will inevtiably beapplied to the innocent. Even if it is a small number of innocents (and it is in terms of percentages) that to me outweighs all the arguments in favor of the death penalty-- but not retributive justice in toto.

Seriously? (none / 0) (#8)
by eric on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:30:34 PM EST

Do you seriously mean to argue that murderers contemplate their crimes in light of the punishment should they get caught? Are you saying that there have those that would have killed with the mere threat of life in prison but decided against murder because of capital punishment?


: Not at all (none / 0) (#9)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:06:28 PM EST

The arguement is that dead murderers commit no more murders. Murderers sentenced to life do in face commit more murders.

I beg to differ (none / 0) (#14)
by Al on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:28:37 PM EST

The key reason is the assurance of eliminating repeat offenses.

No, it's not. Who do you think you're kidding? The key reason is revenge.

Ending the death penalty will result in the deaths of more innocents.

Have you discounted the innocents on death row? And did you take into account the fact that murder rates are lower where there is no death penalty?


Are you projecting? (none / 0) (#15)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:03:46 PM EST

Unlike you, I can't speak for the motivations of others. How do you know that the key reason of others is revenge? Or is this just a handy straw man?

As for myself, I feel we should keep the death penalty as it will save more innocent life than would its repeal.

BTW, comparing states whose populations are very different in many ways and claiming the difference in murder rates is related to only the death penalty is fifth grade silliness.


If there are factors (none / 0) (#16)
by HK on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:55:30 PM EST

other than capital punishment which have a much more significant effect on the murder rate in States that retain the death penalty, as you suggest, don't you think that it would be better abolish the death penalty and use the money saved to tackle those factors? In your own time...


Again, I beg to differ (none / 0) (#23)
by Al on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:38:18 PM EST

Are you projecting?

Do you know what projection even means?

How do you know that the key reason of others is revenge?

Because they say so.

BTW, comparing states whose populations are very different in many ways and claiming the difference in murder rates is related to only the death penalty is fifth grade silliness.

You're bluffing, and not very well at that. Explain what those differences in populations are, and how they compensate for the steadily increasing gap in murder rates between DP and non-DP states.


: State to state differences (none / 0) (#25)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:21:46 PM EST

Explain what those differences in populations are, and how they compensate for the steadily increasing gap in murder rates between DP and non-DP states.
Well lets see. For example between Vermont and Missippi there is considerable difference in median income, average education, life span, average age, poverty rate, and murder rate.
BTW, what happened to the murder rate in Washington DC in the years since capital punishment ended?

It is true (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:47:16 AM EST

that some (very few in the grand scheme of things) people sentenced to life w/o parole have killed inside or escaped and committed crimes on the outside.

It's also true that many of the same people (myself included) who oppose capital punishment also oppose the type of confinement that would be necessary to prevent all possibility of future crime (essentially lifelong solitary confinement with no contact with others).

So, yes, abolition of capital punishment almost certainly would mean some greater number of killings by convicted muderders spared.

However, as with almost everything in the real world, we must BALANCE interests in situations where no possible solution weighs totally on the good side.

Obviously, an opponent of capital punishment cannot dismiss even one killing as insignificant without creating cognitive dissonance. Yet, one of the points I repeatedly try to make here (with very limited success) is that the eradication of dissonance is not possible in the real world because human beings are complex and imperfect. People driven by abstract ideals too often choose to reject reality when acknowledging it would require realizing you can't flip to the dogma page and find a perfect solution to anything.

There is no perfect solution to punishment for crime. The best we can do is make progress toward the least imperfect, and one issue is whether it is less imperfect to tolerate a small number of deaths that might not have happened if the government had killed people or to tolerate the government killing a larger number of people in the interst of preventing them from possibly killing again.

"Future dangerousness" is recognized as an aggravating factor which a jury and court should consider in determining whether death is the appropriate punishment. But, it's not a required factor to be found andby definition "future" behavior can only be assessed in a speculative (perhaps informed) manner.

Even if we merely required a jury to find in every case where death is imposed that that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person presents an unreasonably high risk of future serious injury or death to another person under any allowable terms of confinement we would greatly reduce the number of death sentences.

That's a reasonable position even if it is not my own. I acknowledge your point, but I still believe that because in every INDIVIDUAL case it cannot be known the person will kill again even if we accept the knowledge that, in the aggregate, some will kill again. I don't think we should kill based on statistical probabilities.

Ultimately (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Dadler on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:09:07 PM EST

There is no real "justice" for violent crime, especially murder. The death of, or profound damage to, another human being can never be undone or even marginally recompensed. To kill as punishment is to spit on that precious truth. It is to say "To hell with others, vengeance is mine alone!"


Well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:21:11 PM EST

imo, to refuse to recognize that the most important thing - by far - that must be weighed in any "balance" regarding the DP and innocents murdered, is the actual number of innocents murdered, and that the number of innocents murdered without the DP is much greater than the number of innocents murdered with it, seems pretty heartless.


I will agree (none / 0) (#17)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:20:47 PM EST

with the argument that the most important factor to be weighed is "the number of innocents murdered." I will also stress that some would disagree with that and the their arguments are not without force. More than that, i would point out that just because "innocents murdered" is viewed as the single most important factor does not mean it outweighs all other factors combined.

I will strongly dispute your assertion that, "the number of innocents murdered without the DP is much greater than the number of innocents murdered with it." As I stated before in this thread, I acknowledge that we can't dismiss the reality that some number of people will be killed by inmates sentenced to life who would not be killed if the death penalty had been imposed.

However, I think we must be honest and acknowledge that the number is actualy very small. As I also said, even a very small number of such deaths certainly cannot be dismissed as unimportant, but that we must remember that in each individual case we are merely speculating about the possibility of a future death and that I oppose killing people based on statistical probabilities.

Decon (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:30:56 PM EST

I will strongly dispute your assertion that, "the number of innocents murdered without the DP is much greater than the number of innocents murdered with it."

The most reliable estimate I've been able to find of innocents executed is:

The book, In Spite of Innocence, notes that between 1900 and 1992 there have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted of murder or capital rape -- a third of whom were given a death sentence. The authors discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed.

Of course 23 is still very much 23 too many, however shouldn't it be obvious to someone with common sense and no dog in the fight that many more than 23 people have been killed in those 92 years by convicted but unexecuted murderers?

For someone to say that they feel it's better that more innocent lives be taken than less seems pretty heartless to me.


don't we all do it ? (none / 0) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:45:20 PM EST

in one context or another.

Do you advocate EVERY possible method of reducing murders? We could greatly reduce murder and all other forms of crime by creating a much tougher line on crime and abandoning liberties we tend to take for granted.

I have never tried to suggest that the there are large number of innocent people executed. I don't feel it necessary to mislead to make my points because I think they are strong enough without resorting to that. I do think there is a qualitiative difference (even though dead is dead) between the collective action of a society and the individual acts of criminals. I am not even partially or indirectly responsible for the actions of criminals over which I hold no sway. I am in part responsible for the actions of my government.

I do not advocate doing EVERYTHING we could to prevent individual criminals from killing people. That does sound heartless so stated but I am willing to tolerate a certain level of crime including murder in exchange for living in a free and open society. I actually have less opposition to the death penalty than I would have to other measures we could take that would very likely have a much greater impact on the crime rate.

Fair enough (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:55:20 PM EST

we choose to draw our lines in the sand at different places.

I am aware that my position is not without significant weaknesses and that there is no neat and tidy perfect answer.

To me, in this debate, the qualitative difference you speak of is irrelevant. I prefer the fewest innocents murdered, period.

I believe that is where our lines in the sand do not meet.


Well then (none / 0) (#21)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:07:02 PM EST

would you advocate travel restrictions and the requirement that all people pass through checkpoints, provide documentation of approved reason to proceed and be searched at every corner? Curfews prohibting people from being in public without authorization at certain times? Prohibition of alcohol? Authority for government to imprison people for life based on suspicion of future dangerousness? The physical crippling of people who known to have committed violent acts? Allowing police to search anyone or any place without warrant or probable cause. Sterilization of criminals? Removal of children from parents who don't pass muster as likely to raise law-abiding children? ...?...?

All of these things and others would likely have a much greater impact on the murder rate than the death penalty being imposed on a limited class of those convicted of particularly heinous crimes. Now obviously, there is a difference between imposing broad based restrictions on those who have not committed crimes and executing those who have but, do you really believe in the "fewest innocents murdered, period?


: Like I said in my previous comment (none / 0) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:18:00 PM EST

To me, in this debate, yes.
I also said in that same comment:
I am aware that my position is not without significant weaknesses and that there is no neat and tidy perfect answer.
You obviously choose to draw your line in a different place than I in this debate.
I'm willing to accept that, I assume you're willing to accept that I choose to draw my line in a different place than yours.

RE (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by eric on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:26:25 PM EST

This "holdout" likely saved a man's life. Good for her.

Poor behaviour (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by HK on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:21:48 PM EST

During the prosecution's rebuttal, Cassidy displayed the pictures of the seven victims on a screen. He told jurors to leave sympathy for the victims as well as for Luna out of their decision.

Then why show the pictures? He knew full well that the pictures would have more of a lasting effect on the jury members than his words.

I also think it was unacceptable that Palatine Police Chief John Koziol publicly expressed disappointment in the jury, especially since he expressed it in terms of whether it showed humanity. It's fine and understandable that he felt disappointed, but he shouldn't have said so to the press because it is disrespecting the jury's opinion and their verdict. The judicial system lets the jury have their say; whether you agree with their decision or not, it is an integral part of the criminal justice system that a man is judged by his peers. As someone who is another integral part of that system, Kozoil should have more respect for it as a whole.

: HK (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:01:27 PM EST

They are trying to dehumanize him, make him less than a person and then step on him,'' Burch said
If you murder 7 people, you have demumanized yourself. No else need do anything.

If it is wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by TomStewart on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:54:04 PM EST

...for the individual to kill, it is also wrong for the state to kill.

Got it?

: I've got it that it's (none / 0) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:04:48 PM EST

your opinion on the subject. But, do you get that the concept that the fact you hold an opinion is insufficient to end reasonable debate on complex matters?