Death Penalty a Deterrent?

74 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230
Death Penalty a Deterrent?

Many who are against the death penalty have made the argument that they don't believe that it is a deterrent to someone before they kill. Does this case affect your opinion on deterrance? This man researched the death penalty and only went through with his plan to kill after he found that the death penalty had been abolished in that state.

A Canadian man did research on Illinois' death penalty before killing a woman he'd previously dated, prosecutors said Thursday.

Dmitry Smirnov, 20, from Surrey, British Columbia, is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of 36-year-old Jitka Vesel, of Westmont.

DuPage County State's Attorney Robert Berlin said the pair met on an Internet dating site two years ago and had a brief relationship before Vesel left Smirnov for another man.

Prosecutors said Smirnov then moved back to Canada where he began harassing the woman online.

advertisement "In 2009, the victim did file a police report against the defendent because he had threatened her," said Berlin.

Two weeks ago, Smirnov drove to Seattle and purchased a gun before heading to the Chicago area, prosectors said. He then used the Internet to find Vesel's home and put a GPS tracking device on her car.

"He was able to use the Internet and the GPS in order to track everywhere that the victim was going," said Berlin.

On Wednesday, that tracking device led him to the Oak Brook parking lot, outside the Czech Society of America, where Vesel was attending a meeting.

Authorities said Smirnov waited for Vesel and shot her when she walked out to her car, hitting her in the body and head.

Police said they received a call at about 9:41 p.m. Wednesday for an unconscious female and found Vesel in the lot of an office building near 22nd Street and Windsor Drive. She was pronounced dead on the scene.

Smirnov not only used the Internet to track down his victim, prosecutors said, but he also researched his potential punishment.

"The defendent did indicate that he researched whether Illinois had a death penalty and the defendent was aware that the death penalty had recently been abolished, so he knew then that he could go through with this plan," said Berlin.

A judge on Thursday ordered Smirnov held without bail. Because the murder appears to have been committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated way, the judge said life without parole is a possibility if Smirnov is convicted.

Smirnov is due back in court on May 9.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Dead-Woman-Found-in--119835589.html#ixzz1JtWtTlL3

elleon17's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 01/26/09
Posts: 1981

Oh My thats a horrible story.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, I don't beleive in it for the simple reason that I don't think that I have the right to choose whether someone lives or dies. (I used to feel differently about this issue) I don't not believe in it because of its lack of detterment. I think that most of these sick, whack jobs wouldn't be deterred by much. If life in prison away from the world isn't a deterrent, I'm not sure how much more death would be.

Anyhow, I think the scariest thing about this article is how he was able to use the GPS and internet devices to stalk her and track her down. That really is disturbing. I have a very scary ex that thankfully hasn't contacted in years, but something like this has always been a fear in the back of my head.

carg0612's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 09/23/09
Posts: 1554

Such a sad and disturbing story. My heart goes out to the victim's family.

I suspect that for most would-be murderers it's not a deterrent. Of course I haven't taken the time to research any studies to that end.

I have a sneaky feeling that the sicko in the story would have killed anyway. Just an unfounded feeling.

I will admit my ambivilance on this topic. There is a dark side of me that has no problem wanting these murderers to die. There is another part of me that cannot condone the process. I suppose I'm in my own internal debate on this one.

A deterrent? For some I would guess yes and others certainly not.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"carg0612" wrote:

I have a sneaky feeling that the sicko in the story would have killed anyway. Just an unfounded feeling.

Seems like it would have to be a huge coincidence that he has been threatening the woman since 2008 and a month after the death penalty is banned he kills her.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Seems like it would have to be a huge coincidence that he has been threatening the woman since 2008 and a month after the death penalty is banned he kills her.

I agree with the previous statements based on this:

"The defendent did indicate that he researched whether Illinois had a death penalty and the defendent was aware that the death penalty had recently been abolished, so he knew then that he could go through with this plan," said Berlin.

If the death penalty were in place, he would have created a new plan to see if he could get away with it. I'm also one who's against the death penalty for the same reason Elleon posted, so this does not change my conviction at all. I wonder why he drove all the way to Seattle to get a gun first. Are the laws easier to gain access to a gun in Washington?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Beertje" wrote:

If the death penalty were in place, he would have created a new plan to see if he could get away with it. I'm also one who's against the death penalty for the same reason Elleon posted, so this does not change my conviction at all. I wonder why he drove all the way to Seattle to get a gun first. Are the laws easier to gain access to a gun in Washington?

Hint: British Columbia, Canada is above Washington state.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Beertje" wrote:

I agree with the previous statements based on this:

If the death penalty were in place, he would have created a new plan to see if he could get away with it. I'm also one who's against the death penalty for the same reason Elleon posted, so this does not change my conviction at all. I wonder why he drove all the way to Seattle to get a gun first. Are the laws easier to gain access to a gun in Washington?

Compared to buying a gun in Canada, yes. Waaayyyy easier. Plus, trying to drive a gun across the border is just plain stupid. Much 'safer' to buy south of the border.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Beertje" wrote:

If the death penalty were in place, he would have created a new plan to see if he could get away with it

Don't think so. He didn't even try to get away with it. Turned himself in. The only thing stopping him from doing it earlier was the death penalty.

Dmitry Smirnov, 20, of Surrey, turned himself in to police not long after he repeatedly shot Jitka Vesel, 36, of Westmont at the Windsor Office Park at 125 Windsor Drive in the western suburb Wednesday night, authorities said.

During a court hearing, where he was denied bail, prosecutors said Smirnov had moved to the Chicago area in 2008 after meeting Vesel through an online dating service. But Vesel eventually returned to her former boyfriend and Smirnov returned to Canada.

But he began harassing her via the Internet and by telephone, according to DuPage County State's Attorney Robert Berlin said. In 2009, she filed a complaint with the police in Berwyn, where she lived at the time, saying Smirnov had threatened to harm her.

Two weeks ago, he drove to the area from Canada, buying a 40-caliber handgun and ammunition in Seattle on his way to the Chicago area, Berlin said. He arrived in the area April 8 or 9, and tracked down Vesel’s address through the Internet, Berlin said. Smirnov lived in his car for four days after returning to the area, Berlin said.

Smirnov attached a GPS device to her car and tracked her for several days, Berlin said.

On Wednesday night, he approached her in the parking lot and began shooting. As he was reloading, she threw coffee on him and fell to the ground. He fired more shots, Berlin said. Berlin said Vesel was shot numerous times in the head and body and died at the scene.
Smirnov fled, but later called Chicago police in the Grand Crossing District and admitted to the slaying, Berlin said. Chicago police contacted Oak Brook police, who reached Smirnov by phone. Smirnov turned himself in to a Romeoville police officer, Berlin said.

Police found a gun in his car and 11 casings at the scene, Berlin said. Smirnov later provided a videotaped confession.

Berlin said Smirnov went through with his plan after researching to see if Illinois had the death penalty. Just weeks ago, Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation banning the death penalty in the state.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-apparent-homicide-at-oak-brook-corporate-park-20110414,0,2410337.story

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Hint: British Columbia, Canada is above Washington state.

Thanks for the hint, but I am fairly geographically adept. Just because it's above them, does not mean that's the typical direction to travel when going east. I know members of my family typically drive across Canada as much as possible before entering the US at the ND border. He easily could've taken another route that may have been less boring or quicker and purchased a gun in any other state he traveled up until he reached Illinois, depending on the state laws as to how easy each state has to purchase a gun. So that hint is not helpful. My guess is he researched each state for purchasing a gun as well.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Beertje" wrote:

Thanks for the hint, but I am fairly geographically adept. Just because it's above them, does not mean that's the typical direction to travel when going east. I know members of my family typically drive across Canada as much as possible before entering the US at the ND border. He easily could've taken another route that may have been less boring or quicker and purchased a gun in any other state he traveled up until he reached Illinois, depending on the state laws as to how easy each state has to purchase a gun. So that hint is not helpful. My guess is he researched each state for purchasing a gun as well.

Sorry I just figured you might have missed that since you asked why he drove ALL the way to Seattle when it is only like 100 miles from where he started.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Beertje" wrote:

Thanks for the hint, but I am fairly geographically adept. Just because it's above them, does not mean that's the typical direction to travel when going east. I know members of my family typically drive across Canada as much as possible before entering the US at the ND border. He easily could've taken another route that may have been less boring or quicker and purchased a gun in any other state he traveled up until he reached Illinois, depending on the state laws as to how easy each state has to purchase a gun. So that hint is not helpful. My guess is he researched each state for purchasing a gun as well.

Really? Even with the price of gas up here???? Wink

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Don't think so. He didn't even try to get away with it. Turned himself in. The only thing stopping him from doing it earlier was the death penalty.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-apparent-homicide-at-oak-brook-corporate-park-20110414,0,2410337.story

He did try to get away with it by fleeing. Hopefully his conscience got the best of him. If the only thing that was stopping him was the death penalty, he easily could've kidnapped her and killed her in a neighboring state who doesn't have the death penalty as well. Who knows, maybe that was his next plan if this one would not have worked.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

Really? Even with the price of gas up here???? Wink

What is the price of gas there now compared to here? I haven't been keeping track lately. That would totally make sense if it's much cheaper here!

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Beertje" wrote:

He did try to get away with it by fleeing. Hopefully his conscience got the best of him. If the only thing that was stopping him was the death penalty, he easily could've kidnapped her and killed her in a neighboring state who doesn't have the death penalty as well. Who knows, maybe that was his next plan if this one would not have worked.

In that case wouldn't that prove that the death penalty was a deterrent as well?

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Beertje" wrote:

What is the price of gas there now compared to here? I haven't been keeping track lately. That would totally make sense if it's much cheaper here!

Last time I checked we were about $4.50 a gallon, equivalency. IDK. We pay $1.18 per litre right now. Too bad we don't produce oil here in Alberta. Oh, wait a sec....

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

In looking at the bigger picture, away from this specific case, I do not think the death penalty acts a deterrent for the majority of offenders. We do not have a death penalty here in Canada, but per capita our homicide rate is much, much lower than in the US.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 10 hours ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Don't think so. He didn't even try to get away with it. Turned himself in. The only thing stopping him from doing it earlier was the death penalty.

Are you really trying to say that because this one man was deterred by the death penalty the death penalty is a deterrent?

Do you know why Ted Bundy moved to FL? Just saying.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Yeah, that dude was obviously sane, so we should base public policy on his decision making.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Are you really trying to say that because this one man was deterred by the death penalty the death penalty is a deterrent?

Do you know why Ted Bundy moved to FL? Just saying.

Yes I am. How many does it take? Isn't it enough that this one woman would be alive?

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 10 hours ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yes I am. How many does it take? Isn't it enough that this one woman would be alive?

No, actually it isn't enough. Plain and simple, this woman would have been alive had this man not killed her. Restricting access to guns would have prevented Gabby Giffords and James Brady from suffering their injuries. Isn't that enough to enact stricter gun laws?

Ted Bundy went to FL because of the death penalty. He committed murders there, and ultimately it was the state of FL where he was executed. Ar you saying if they didn't have the death penalty, it would have deterred Bundy from killing? If so, the two things don't reconcile. If FL didn't have the death penalty, Bundy wouldn't have committed murder in FL? If IL did have the death penalty, Jitka Vesel would be alive?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

No, actually it isn't enough. Plain and simple, this woman would have been alive had this man not killed her. Restricting access to guns would have prevented Gabby Giffords and James Brady from suffering their injuries. Isn't that enough to enact stricter gun laws?

Ted Bundy went to FL because of the death penalty. He committed murders there, and ultimately it was the state of FL where he was executed. Ar you saying if they didn't have the death penalty, it would have deterred Bundy from killing? If so, the two things don't reconcile. If FL didn't have the death penalty, Bundy wouldn't have committed murder in FL? If IL did have the death penalty, Jitka Vesel would be alive?

It's enough for me. Good thing I live in Texas. You can't prove that restricting gun laws would have made a difference since they could have obtained those same guns illegally. I can prove it would have made a difference in this case from the killer's own mouth.

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I don't think we can speculate on whether it would or does deter others from committing murder. I know some people may cite this as a reason for not having the death penalty-- for me personally, I don't care whether it deters criminals or not. I think there are many more things I would do to deter criminals other than enacting the death penalty.

I don't think it is a fair burden to place on any individual or group of individuals to murder criminals. Someone has to pull the switch, inject the drugs, actually "do" the act of killing to execute the death penalty-- and I don't think that is a fair burden to place on any member of our society. That's just me.

Gina's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 29

it might not be a deterrent but it sure as sh!t stops them from murdering again, that is if it's actually carried out

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Gina" wrote:

it might not be a deterrent but it sure as sh!t stops them from murdering again, that is if it's actually carried out

Yup. It kills innocent people, too.

fuchsiasky's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 959

"Beertje" wrote:

I wonder why he drove all the way to Seattle to get a gun first. Are the laws easier to gain access to a gun in Washington?

We have much tougher gun laws than anywhere in the US. It would make a lot of sense to wait until Washington to get it.

fuchsiasky's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 959

"boilermaker" wrote:

I don't think it is a fair burden to place on any individual or group of individuals to murder criminals. Someone has to pull the switch, inject the drugs, actually "do" the act of killing to execute the death penalty-- and I don't think that is a fair burden to place on any member of our society. That's just me.

I agree with this. And I don't see how killing another person makes the situation right.

I don't think it is a deterrent. If someone is sick enough to kill they will do so whether there is a death penalty or not.

Andy1784's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/18/08
Posts: 1372

I have no doubt that for a small percentage of would be killers, that it is a deterrent. There are also a small percentage of people put to death that were innocent. No one knows what number is higher though i'm sure many might speculate according to their own ideals.

KathyH24's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/05/02
Posts: 28

I don't think it was ever meant to be a deterrent. I think there are just some people in the world that are so dangerous for the safety of everyone else they should be put to death. As for the article I don't believe a thing the man has to say. You're talking about a murderer for goodness sake. If the guy could premeditate to kill someone in cold blood I have no doubt he's not above lying.

Kathy

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"boilermaker" wrote:

I don't think it is a fair burden to place on any individual or group of individuals to murder criminals. Someone has to pull the switch, inject the drugs, actually "do" the act of killing to execute the death penalty-- and I don't think that is a fair burden to place on any member of our society. That's just me.

If someone breaks into my house and I have to kill them to protect my children it's not fair either. But I would do it in a heartbeat. Police officers and our Military have to make those choices every day to protect society. If a member of society has to kill to protect the rest of society then that is just a burden they choose to bear. And I thank them for it.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"KathyH24" wrote:

I don't think it was ever meant to be a deterrent. I think there are just some people in the world that are so dangerous for the safety of everyone else they should be put to death. As for the article I don't believe a thing the man has to say. You're talking about a murderer for goodness sake. If the guy could premeditate to kill someone in cold blood I have no doubt he's not above lying.

Kathy

It may not be a deterrent to everyone. But I absolutely think it is for some. Especially things like murder for hire. I think a guy that is killing for money is a lot less likely to pull that trigger if he knows he could die for it.

Whether you believe him or not, it would have to be a very high coincidence that this guy has been threatening to kill her for 3 years and did nothing about it until 2 weeks after the death penalty was dropped in that state when he left Canada to travel to go kill her.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

If someone breaks into my house and I have to kill them to protect my children it's not fair either. But I would do it in a heartbeat. Police officers and our Military have to make those choices every day to protect society. If a member of society has to kill to protect the rest of society then that is just a burden they choose to bear. And I thank them for it.

So execution = self defense? I think not.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

The idea that this is an effective deterrent because of one mans actions is highly illogical....one story doesn't prove effectiveness at all.

On top of that, there is nothing to say that if the death penalty existed everywhere and was in place for a long time (with no evidence that it was subject to change)...there is nothing to say that this man wouldn't have committed the crime anyway.

Perhaps he waited because he *knew* it was a possibility that it would change. That is simply taking advantage of a situation to work in his favor. If that was not a possibility and he felt his only choice was to commit his actions under the risk of facing the death penalty and that would never change...there is nothing to say he wouldn't have done it anyway.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

So execution = self defense? I think not.

I guess we disagree. I absolutely believe it is the same thing. Having the death penalty on the books would have saved this woman's life. That is self defense.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I guess we disagree. I absolutely believe it is the same thing. Having the death penalty on the books would have saved this woman's life. That is self defense.

How exactly is the state executing an innocent person self defense? The person is innocent for 1 and already incarcerated for 2. Who are they defending?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

How exactly is the state executing an innocent person self defense? The person is innocent for 1 and already incarcerated for 2. Who are they defending?

The state doesn't purposely execute innocent people. Just like they don't purposely incarcerate innocent people. What if a soldier or policeman accidentaly kills an innocent person? Same thing.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The state doesn't purposely execute innocent people. Just like they don't purposely incarcerate innocent people. What if a soldier or policeman accidentaly kills an innocent person? Same thing.

Who cares that they don't do it purposefully? The person is still dead. If we didn't have the death penalty, no innocent people would be murdered by the state. If you're wrongfully incarcerated, you can still be released. If you're wrongfully executed, you're dead.

If a police officer shot your sibling because they thought they might be a criminal (no immediate danger of any kind), would you just say "oh well." Are you under the impression that it's legal for a police officer to just shoot wildly at people they think might be criminals?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

Who cares that they don't do it purposefully? The person is still dead. If we didn't have the death penalty, no innocent people would be murdered by the state. If you're wrongfully incarcerated, you can still be released. If you're wrongfully executed, you're dead.

If a police officer shot your sibling because they thought they might be a criminal (no immediate danger of any kind), would you just say "oh well." Are you under the impression that it's legal for a police officer to just shoot wildly at people they think might be criminals?

Accidents happen all the time where people are still dead. If a police officer accidentally shoots someone they are still dead. That doesn't mean we just don't have policemen because they might accidentally shoot someone. We have the best court system in the world, I don't think an execution is equal to wildly shooting at people. Sure it is remotely possible that an innocent person might be executed, just like a responsible policeman could still make a mistake and shoot an innocent person. I believe that is just a chance our society has to take to protect ourselves.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Accidents happen all the time where people are still dead. If a police officer accidentally shoots someone they are still dead. That doesn't mean we just don't have policemen because they might accidentally shoot someone. We have the best court system in the world, I don't think an execution is equal to wildly shooting at people. Sure it is remotely possible that an innocent person might be executed, just like a responsible policeman could still make a mistake and shoot an innocent person. I believe that is just a chance our society has to take to protect ourselves.

What would you say if someone you knew was wrongfully executed? You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet?

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I guess we disagree. I absolutely believe it is the same thing. Having the death penalty on the books would have saved this woman's life. That is self defense.

Do you really believe that it would've saved this woman's life? Maybe he was just following it to make more headlines in sensationalizing his grandiose idea of becoming famous. It obviously worked. Have you been able to get in the mind of a murderer to know what his true motives were? If he was that bound and determined, he will find a way regardless of what limits the system imposes. Did she have a restraining order against him or just report him to the police? From the articles you've provided, they do not indicate that she had an OFP against him, much less a harassment order. Threaten to harm does not equal threaten to kill for years.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

What would you say if someone you knew was wrongfully executed? You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet?

The same thing I would say if someone I knew was accidentally shot by a policeman. I would be devastated but know that it wasn't on purpose. Mistakes happen. I would know that it must have been a REALLY unfortunate misunderstanding if it could make it through the court system without being overturned. I would be just as devastated if I was this woman's family knowing that she would be alive if the death penalty hadn't been taken off the books.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Beertje" wrote:

Do you really believe that it would've saved this woman's life? Maybe he was just following it to make more headlines in sensationalizing his grandiose idea of becoming famous. It obviously worked. Have you been able to get in the mind of a murderer to know what his true motives were? If he was that bound and determined, he will find a way regardless of what limits the system imposes. Did she have a restraining order against him or just report him to the police? From the articles you've provided, they do not indicate that she had an OFP against him, much less a harassment order. Threaten to harm does not equal threaten to kill for years.

Yes I do. It really doesn't take that much to figure out that he didn't want to die for killing her. Believe it or not death does scare some people. If the threats were serious enough that she filed a complaint with the police even though he was living in Canada, I would say she took them seriously. I'm not sure how you could get a restraining order on someone living in another country or even file harrassment charges, not that it would have helped if she had.

During a court hearing, where he was denied bail, prosecutors said Smirnov had moved to the Chicago area in 2008 after meeting Vesel through an online dating service. But Vesel eventually returned to her former boyfriend and Smirnov returned to Canada.

But he began harassing her via the Internet and by telephone, according to DuPage County State's Attorney Robert Berlin said. In 2009, she filed a complaint with the police in Berwyn, where she lived at the time, saying Smirnov had threatened to harm her.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-apparent-homicide-at-oak-brook-corporate-park-20110414,0,2410337.story

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The same thing I would say if someone I knew was accidentally shot by a policeman. I would be devastated but know that it wasn't on purpose. Mistakes happen. I would know that it must have been a REALLY unfortunate misunderstanding if it could make it through the court system without being overturned. I would be just as devastated if I was this woman's family knowing that she would be alive if the death penalty hadn't been taken off the books.

Executions aren't accidental. Do you think that someone just slips and gassed innocent people by accident like a gun accidentally going off? It's murder.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 10 hours ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

How do you explain the fact that states with the death penalty have a higher rate of murders than those without?

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yes I do. It really doesn't take that much to figure out that he didn't want to die for killing her. Believe it or not death does scare some people. If the threats were serious enough that she filed a complaint with the police even though he was living in Canada, I would say she took them seriously. I'm not sure how you could get a restraining order on someone living in another country or even file harrassment charges, not that it would have helped if she had.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-apparent-homicide-at-oak-brook-corporate-park-20110414,0,2410337.story

I'm not sure about that particular state, but to do an OFP in our state, they have to serve them to appear in court. If he/she pulls a no show, the judge just listens to the petitioner's testimony and awards or denies based on their information alone. They would contact the respondent with the decision. If he failed to comply with the order, his police department would be notified of his warrant and possibly extradite them to the state the order was violated. It's really not that different than if respondent lived in another state. Processing other criminal charges would be no different than the murder charges filed against him now.

Filing a complaint with her local police is much different than filing an OFP or harassment charges. Filing a complaint is more or less beginning a paper trail of what has transpired in the event something more serious needs to be done, which in this case there should've been more done. But did he stop contact with her after that initial complaint and just plan after that? Did the police contact him after she filed the complaint and warned him to leave her alone? Why was it that there were no more complaints since the only one in 2009? What happened in 2010? One could only speculate that he left her alone in between incidents, or at least at a point where she may have been unaware and in the meantime, plan his revenge.

From what I've read, most murderers don't give a crap about the punishment because many of them think they can get away with it to begin with and won't get caught. Having a death penalty won't deter most of these criminals. Instead, it's proven some were murdered by the state when they were in fact later found innocent. If it has been proven that removal of the death penalty saved the life of one person who was later found innocent, it's worth it. I don't think those that are truly innocent should be sacrificed because of one wacked murder's statement that he researched a state ahead of time to learn he would not be subject to the death penalty.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Beertje" wrote:

I'm not sure about that particular state, but to do an OFP in our state, they have to serve them to appear in court. If he/she pulls a no show, the judge just listens to the petitioner's testimony and awards or denies based on their information alone. They would contact the respondent with the decision. If he failed to comply with the order, his police department would be notified of his warrant and possibly extradite them to the state the order was violated. It's really not that different than if respondent lived in another state. Processing other criminal charges would be no different than the murder charges filed against him now.

Filing a complaint with her local police is much different than filing an OFP or harassment charges. Filing a complaint is more or less beginning a paper trail of what has transpired in the event something more serious needs to be done, which in this case there should've been more done. But did he stop contact with her after that initial complaint and just plan after that? Did the police contact him after she filed the complaint and warned him to leave her alone? Why was it that there were no more complaints since the only one in 2009? What happened in 2010? One could only speculate that he left her alone in between incidents, or at least at a point where she may have been unaware and in the meantime, plan his revenge.

I don't get what difference that makes. If he did leave her alone that just proves to me that he left her alone until he found out that they changed the law so he couldn't get the death penalty and then he went and killed her.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

Executions aren't accidental. Do you think that someone just slips and gassed innocent people by accident like a gun accidentally going off? It's murder.

You only recieve the death penalty if you have been convicted of a murder. If an innocent person is convicted that is accidental, and if an innocent person makes it through all the appeals and is still found guilty that is highly unlikely and accidental by everyone involved. No one intentionally convicts an innocent man. An execution is just carrying out the verdict of the court. It is not an action by one person.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You only recieve the death penalty if you have been convicted of a murder. If an innocent person is convicted that is accidental, and if an innocent person makes it through all the appeals and is still found guilty that is highly unlikely and accidental by everyone involved. No one intentionally convicts an innocent man. An execution is just carrying out the verdict of the court. It is not an action by one person.

Who said it had to be an action by one person? Executing someone is still an intentional act.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

Who said it had to be an action by one person? Executing someone is still an intentional act.

But executing an innocent person is not an intentional act.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't get what difference that makes. If he did leave her alone that just proves to me that he left her alone until he found out that they changed the law so he couldn't get the death penalty and then he went and killed her.

That makes no sense. If he was waiting for the death penalty to go away, why didn't he cross state lines and kill her in another state that has no death penalty back in 2009?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Beertje" wrote:

That makes no sense. If he was waiting for the death penalty to go away, why didn't he cross state lines and kill her in another state that has no death penalty back in 2009?

Maybe he thought he'd get caught before he could kidnap her and drive her across the state? Who knows? I would think it would be a lot harder to kidnap someone and drive them to another state than walk up and shoot them. Also unless there was a witness even if the body was found in another state that wouldn't prove that he killed her in another state. It would likely be assumed that he killed her where he kidnapped her.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But executing an innocent person is not an intentional act.

Sure it is. Part of the understanding is that the justice system is not perfect. Inherent in the death penalty is the understanding that the state will execute innocent people. Some states have continued to have the death penalty with that knowledge that among those they kill some will be innocent. How is that not intentional?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

Sure it is. Part of the understanding is that the justice system is not perfect. Inherent in the death penalty is the understanding that the state will execute innocent people. Some states have continued to have the death penalty with that knowledge that among those they kill some will be innocent. How is that not intentional?

Well I guess by your same argument we intentionally kill people with every police officer we hire, because we know it is possible that they might shoot an innocent person.

Pages