In Illinois, a defendant convicted of first degree murder is eligible for the death penalty if:

(1) He or she is 18 years or older at the time of the murder, and

(2) An "aggravating factor" listed in the death penalty statute is present. These factors include, for example: The murder of a police officer, fireman, or prison employee; the murder of two or more persons; a murder committed during the course of another felony such as robbery or rape; a murder for hire; a murder committed in a "cold, calculated and preconceived" manner; a murder that involves the infliction of torture; or the murder of a child under the age of 12, if "exceptionally brutal or heinous."

If the defendant is found eligible for the death penalty, the judge or jury must next decide whether he or she should be sentenced to death. This is done by weighing any aggravating factors (reasons to impose the death penalty) against any mitigating factors (reasons not to impose the death penalty). Aggravating factors include those listed in the statute, as well as "any other reason" supported by the evidence why the defendant should be sentenced to death. Mitigating factors include those listed in the statute, such as: The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity; the murder was committed while the defendant was under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance; or, the defendant acted under the threat of death or great bodily harm to himself. Mitigating factors also include "any other reason" supported by the evidence why the defendant should not be sentenced to death. The death penalty statute requires that the defendant shall be sentenced to death unless the mitigating factors are found to be "sufficient to preclude" imposition of the death penalty.

We are all aware of murder cases in which it appears that death may be the appropriate penalty under the terms of the death penalty statute. Those, for example, that involve cold-blooded, multiple murders committed in the course of other felonies, such as robbery or rape, by a person with a lengthy record of violent criminal behavior. On the other hand, we can also think of cases in which there can be little disagreement that death is not the appropriate penalty. Those, for example, that involve first time offenders with an otherwise positive life history, who act under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

But what about the vast majority of capital cases that fall somewhere in the middle? What insures that the death penalty is not meted out in those difficult-to-decide cases in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which the Constitution prohibits? In Illinois, our death penalty statute provides for review of all capital cases by the Illinois Supreme Court "as a means to promote the evenhanded, rational and consistent imposition of death sentences" through that court's "scrutiny of the record and of the propriety and proportionality of the sentence imposed." People v. Brownell 79 I11.2d 508, 404 N.E.2d 181, 199 (1980). But is it possible for that court, or any court, to distinguish in a principled manner those cases in which the death penalty is appropriate from those cases in which it is not? Or, as the United States Supreme Court recognized in McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 204 (1971), is that a task "beyond present human ability?"

In each of the following cases the defendants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a judge or jury. On appeal, each defendant argued that the death penalty was an excessive punishment in light of his or her life history and character, and the circumstances of the offense. In each case, the alternative sentences ranged from a determinate prison term of 20 to 80 years, to natural life imprisonment without parole. In which cases, if any, do you think the Illinois Supreme Court held that death was an excessive punishment under our death penalty statute? If so, why? If not, why not? In which cases, if any, do you believe that death is an excessive punishment under our statute? If so, why? If not, why not?

After 19 years of marriage and two children, the defendant's wife Rosemary obtained a divorce, but continued to spend time with him. She later told the defendant that she would not be able to see him as frequently because she had a new boyfriend. Two days later, the defendant purchased a gun and ammunition. He then bought two gasoline cans, which he filled with gas and put in the trunk of his car. When told by Rosemary the following day that she had been given a diamond engagement ring by her new boyfriend, the defendant shot her ten times, poured gasoline throughout her house, and set the house on fire. The defendant then proceeded to a bar, where he fatally shot one of the police officers who arrived to arrest him for his ex-wife's murder, and wounded a second officer, before being disarmed by a third officer. The defendant had no prior criminal record and evidence showed that he had suffered severe physical and emotional problems during the two years preceding the murders of his ex-wife and the police officer. He had suffered two serious heart attacks, which left him "partly disabled and incapable of leading a complete and fulfilling life for a man in his early forties." After the defendant had killed his ex-wife and set her house on fire, he put $3,200 in an envelope to provide for his son's military school expenses. At the sentencing hearing, the defendant expressed remorse and stated that he never intended to kill anyone but himself.

Ill.. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

The defendant and his wife, Lesia, were separated. She had filed for divorce and took their daughter to live at her parents' home. One day, Lesia arrived at her parents' home and was confronted by the defendant, who was holding a gun and had a knife and barbecue fork sticking out of his pants. The defendant was yelling "March 2nd," which was the date set for their divorce proceedings. The defendant told his wife that he had just killed her sister, Soyna. The defendant took his wife into a bedroom and forced her at gunpoint to have intercourse with him. Afterward, the defendant tied her up with an extension cord and gagged her with a pillowcase. When Lesia's mother came home, the defendant shot and killed her. Soyna had been raped before being killed.

Evidence showed that the defendant had threatened his first wife with a knife years earlier. He had also broken windows with his fist and with a chair during his first marriage, which had also ended in divorce. Jail guards testified that the defendant threatened to kill a guard, fought with guards, and threatened to commit suicide. The defendant had also written letters of apology to the guards regarding those incidents. The defendant had been an outstanding athlete and captain of his high school football team, and president of the high school's student government. While a student at the University of Michigan, the defendant was charged with assaulting a police officer and placed on probation. The defendant suffered from a personality disorder that was compounded by conflicts with his wife and his dependence on drugs. At the time of the offense, the defendant was under a severe emotional disturbance. The defendant's father had been killed when the defendant was very young, and at the age of 2 his mother placed him in foster care. The defendant smoked cocaine and drank alcohol the day of the incident.

Ill. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

The defendant, who had a history of spousal abuse, shot and killed his estranged wife, Mary, who was planning to divorce him. That same night, he drove to the next county and broke into the home of his ex-wife, Susan, while she and her new husband, Monte, were sleeping. The defendant shot Susan and Monte three times each, killing her and wounding him. The defendant then drove to his parents' house where he told his mother that he had "killed those two whores and that man."

Evidence showed that the defendant had suffered a serious physical injury 15 years earlier when working in a coal mine that caused continuous back and leg problems. At the time of the offenses, the defendant was taking 10 prescription drugs, including anti-anxiety medication and medication containing codeine and librium. The defendant also had a long history of alcohol abuse. He had two prior battery convictions stemming from his marital problems with his first wife. The defendant had served as president of the local mine workers union, and had served for 3 years in the Air Force before being honorably discharged.

Ill. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

The 18-year-old defendant and his girlfriend Stacey had been in a relationship and had lived together until Stacey moved out because the defendant was abusive to her. Stacey moved back with her family. She obtained an order of protection against the defendant, but agreed to see him occasionally. One night, Stacey told the defendant that she would pick him up, but she instead went to a friend's home. The defendant found her there and she refused to go with him. Later that night, Stacey picked up her 15-year-old brother, Shane, and returned home. Stacey went up to her bedroom where she found the defendant hiding in a closet. Stacey ran downstairs and the defendant followed her carrying a shotgun. The defendant fired the shotgun at Stacey's mother, killing her, and shot Shane in the arm. The defendant told Stacey and Shane that he was going to make them watch him commit suicide. He directed Stacey to drive to an isolated area known as Lover's Lane. There, the defendant shot and killed Shane. The defendant and Stacey returned to Stacey's house where Stacey picked up some clothing. They cashed checks at local gas stations and drove to western Missouri where they were found by the police.

Evidence showed that the defendant's parents divorced when he was less than a year old, and that they were drug users who encouraged him to use drugs and alcohol. At various times, the defendant had lived with his mother, an aunt and uncle, his grandparents and his father. When he was 16, the defendant left school. Friends and relatives testified to the defendant's love for Stacey and the importance of that relationship to him. The defendant had no prior criminal convictions.

Ill. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive______

The defendant and his wife, Loretta, argued about Loretta's alleged infidelity. The defendant ended the argument by taking a gas can and splashing gasoline on Loretta, and by spreading more gasoline down the hallway and the stairs. The defendant then lit the gasoline with a match, causing a fire that killed both Loretta and the defendant's youngest son, Darryl. The defendant's eldest daughter, Edna, suffered second and third degree bums in the fire, while three of her brothers and one of their friends who had been sleeping over escaped without serious injury.

The defendant had served in the military for 21 years and had no prior history of serious criminal activity. A psychiatrist testified that the defendant suffered an "isolated explosive disorder" at the time of the offense. On the day of the murders, one of Loretta's boyfriends persistently telephoned, which led to their final argument. During the argument that preceded the murders, Loretta told the defendant that he was not the father of two of their sons. There was also evidence that the defendant had previously had stabbed someone, and that he had fired a shot between his son's legs during an argument with Loretta six months before the murders.

Ill. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

The defendant and his girlfriend Pamela lived with their two children; Jasmin, 3 and Alicia, 5 months. The defendant was watching the children while Pamela was at the hairdresser. The defendant fed the children dinner, and at 10:00 p.m., he told Jasmin to go to bed. When Jasmin refused, the defendant struck her several times with his belt. Jasmin still refused to go to bed and the defendant struck her again with the belt. He then got an extension cord, ordered Jasmin to lower her pants, and beat her with the cord. The defendant then told Jasmin to put her pajamas on. When she started to put them on the wrong way, the defendant beat her again with the extension cord on her arms, legs, back, stomach, chest, shoulders and face. Afterward, the defendant helped Jasmin with her pajamas and put her to bed. Jasmin later complained that her head hurt, so the defendant placed a damp towel on her forehead. Later, Jasmin went to the bathroom and vomited. Pamela returned home around midnight and the defendant told her he had "whipped" Jasmin. By that time. Jasmin was no longer moving. She was cold and had no pulse. The defendant left the apartment and flagged down a Chicago Police Officer. Jasmin was transported to the hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival. At the police station, the defendant and Pamela first told police that Pamela had inflicted the beating, but later that same day, the defendant admitted to police that he had beaten Jasmin. At the police station, the defendant was crying and stated that he had not meant to go that far in disciplining Jasmin.

The defendant had no history of prior child abuse and no prior criminal convictions. Corporal punishment was a common feature of the households in which he grew up. His own mother beat him with an extension cord when he was a teenager.

Ill. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

The defendant lived with his girlfriend. Shelly, and their 7-month-old son Danny. He and Shelly took Danny to a party, where the defendant consumed beer, corn liquor, marijuana and amphetamines. The defendant. Shelly and Danny left the party at 2:00 a.m. The defendant was drunk when they got home, but he remembered going into Danny's room sometime that night and shaking Danny in his crib. In the process, he banged Danny against the side of the crib. Afterward, the defendant noticed that Danny had stopped breathing. In an effort to revive him, he splashed water on Danny and performed CPR. The defendant then went back to bed. The next morning, he checked on Danny and discovered that he was dead. The defendant decided to hide Danny's body in a wooded area not far from his residence. He dressed Danny's body, drove it to the woods and hid it under a pile of debris. The defendant told Shelly that Danny had been kidnapped during a trip to the grocery store. The defendant was questioned by police about the kidnapping and they suspected he was lying. He agreed to take a polygraph examination. Afterward, he told police he thought he had been involved in Danny's death and took them to the body. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was suffocation. Danny also suffered a fractured left arm and ruptured liver. These injuries were consistent with someone holding Danny by his left arm and striking him against a solid object. Danny had also sustained a broken arm four months earlier while in the defendant's care, which the defendant contended at the time happened accidentally. When a DCFS investigator had accused the defendant of breaking Danny's arm at that time, the defendant laughed and stated that he could not prove it.

Evidence showed that the defendant was an alcoholic and drug addict who became violent when intoxicated. The defendant's sister testified that he had been deeply affected by the untimely deaths of various friends and relatives. Jail guards testified that the defendant was a model prisoner. The defendant had no prior felony convictions, but had prior misdemeanor convictions for shoplifting and driving while intoxicated.

Ill. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

The defendant was released from the Department of Corrections after serving 10 years of a 20-year sentence for the murder other 11-month-old daughter and four aggravated arsons. Shortly after her release, she married George, 26 years her senior, for the second time. The defendant had first met George while she was a teenage prostitute years earlier. The defendant lived with George for several weeks before leaving him and moving in with her grandparents. Four months later, the defendant and her new boyfriend were looking for money, so the defendant had her boyfriend drive her to her husband's apartment building. Upon seeing her husband in the parking lot, the defendant grabbed her boyfriend's .357 magnum pistol and forced her husband into his pickup truck. An argument immediately ensued and there was a struggle over the gun. The defendant shot her husband at point blank range once in the chest. He fell to the pavement and bled to death. Before leaving the scene, the defendant took the keys to her husband's truck. She told her boyfriend, "that motherfucker deserves to die." When later questioned by police, the defendant stated that she wanted to get the person responsible for her husband's death and told police she believed her boyfriend was the killer. The defendant ultimately confessed to her husband's murder.

The evidence showed that during childhood and adolescence, the defendant had experienced at least three closed head injuries, one requiring hospitalization. A psychiatric examination revealed that she had suffered "many traumatic experiences" in her life. While a teenager on probation for prostitution, the defendant had murdered her infant daughter by suffocating her because she was frustrated over a custody dispute involving the child. At the age of 19, the defendant and an accomplice tied up, pistol whipped, and robbed her first ex-husband and his girlfriend. Two years later, the defendant set fires on the anniversaries other daughter's birth and death. Evidence also showed that the defendant had been sexually abused for a period of years as a child. She suffered from a borderline personality disorder with sociopathic features, chronic depression and alcoholism. The defendant had been drinking on the day other husband's murder and was drunk both before and after the crime. Jail guards testified that the defendant was made a trustee based on her exemplary behavior. They described the defendant as a model inmate who had voluntarily cleaned sores found on new inmates who were formerly homeless persons.

Ill. Sup. Ct: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

My opinion: Death Penalty Appropriate______ Death Penalty Excessive_______

In the odd numbered cases (1, 3, 5, 7) the Illinois Supreme Court held that the defendants' death sentences were excessive. The Court either remanded the cases for imposition of a sentence other than death, or reduced the sentence to natural life imprisonment without parole. In the even numbered cases (2, 4, 6, 8) the Court held that the defendants' death sentences were appropriate.

People v. Carlson. 79 I11.2d 564, 404 N.E.2d 233 (1980)
By a 4 to 3 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court held that defendant's death sentence was excessive. The Court concluded that the mitigating circumstances "do not bespeak a man with a malignant heart who must be permanently eliminated from society." Focusing on the individual offender and the circumstances of the offense, the Court saw "an individual with no past record who would in all probability be leading a life acceptable to our society had not his unfortunate marital affair triggered this tragic sequence of events." The Court remanded the case for imposition of a sentence other than death. According to IDOC records, the trial court imposed a sentence of 300 years imprisonment.

People v. Gozier. 145 I11.2d 127, 582 N.E.2d 89 (1991)
The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously upheld the defendant's death sentence. The Court found that the murders did not occur suddenly, as the result of a single, definable "triggering event," but rather "resulted from a series of events that the defendant, at least to some extent, planned."

People v. Leger. 149 I11.2d 355, 597 N.E.2d 586 (1992)
By a 5-2 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the defendant's death sentence was excessive. The Court concluded that in light of the defendant's medical, marital and emotional problems, and evidence that defendant's violent acts were triggered by his impending divorce, death was not an appropriate penalty. The Court vacated the defendant's death sentence and imposed a sentence of natural life without parole.

People v. Cole. 172 I11.2d 85, 665 N.E.2d 1275 (1996)
The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously upheld the defendant's death sentence. The Court concluded that the defendant's crimes were not "triggered by or resulted from substantial extenuating circumstances." The Court described the defendant's behavior as more akin to "stalking" than to a "sudden, explosive outburst."

People v. Buses. 112 I11.2d 284, 493 N.E.2d 332 (1986)
By a 5-2 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the defendant's death sentence was excessive. The Court observed that the circumstances of this case closely paralleled those in the Carlson case. As in Carlson. the Court found that the mitigating circumstances "do not bespeak a man with a malignant heart who must be permanently eliminated from society." And, as in Carlson. the Court concluded that "had it not been for this marital disharmony and a dispute which triggered this tragic sequence of events," the defendant "would presumably be leading a life acceptable to our society." The case was remanded for imposition of a sentence other than death.! According to IDOC records, the trial court imposed a sentence of natural life imprisonment without parole.

People v. Tve. 141 I11.2d 1, 565 N.E.2d 931 (1990)
By a 4-3 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the defendant's death sentence. The Court observed that, despite the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record, "his actions here were triggered by nothing more serious than a three-year-old child's refusal to go to bed when she was told to do so." The Court also noted that there was no evidence that the defendant was laboring under any emotional disturbance, nor was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol, at the time he inflicted the fatal beating in this case.

People v. Lucas. 132 I11.2d 399, 548 N.E.2d 1003 (1989)
By a 6-1 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the defendant's death sentence. The Court noted that the Illinois Death Penalty Statute permitted a death sentence for a defendant convicted of murdering a child under the age of 12, only if the child's death "resulted from exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty." The Court concluded that the murder here did not meet the requirements of the statute, since the cause of death "was suffocation which occurred almost immediately after the injuries were inflicted." The Court found "no conclusive evidence that the child's death was "either premeditated, prolonged, or tortuous." The case was remanded for imposition of a sentence other than death. According to IDOC records, the trial judge imposed a sentence of 40 years imprisonment.

People v. Garcia. 165 I11.2d 409, 651 N.E.2d 100 (1995)
By a 5-2 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the defendant's death sentence. The Court concluded that the defendant's "checkered criminal history," including the prior murder other daughter, the robbery other ex-husband, and four aggravated arson convictions, outweighed any mitigation regarding her history of sexual abuse as a child or her good behavior in prison. The Governor, however, later granted the defendant executive clemency, reducing her sentence to natural life imprisonment without parole, on the ground that there are numerous individuals in Illinois who have been convicted of two murders, yet did not receive a death sentence.