It was, in 1973. Then it got reinstated in 1976. If things like this keep up, it’ll happen again.
Huh? Mayhap we are arguing semanics, but, suppose Congress declares war on Canada, I would call that an abuse of power. If SCOTUS declares finds the entire USSC unconstituional, I would imagine that would be an abuse of power. If Bush appointed a monkey butler as head of the SEC, I would consider that an abuse of power. It’s not abuse of lack of power. It assumes that the person acting has the power, but, in the case of blanket commutations, I would call that an abuse of power.
I would submit that Bush Sr. pardoning the Iran Contra people was an abuse. I would submit Clinton repaying political favors and donations by pardoning Mark Rich was an abuse of power. Sure it is a value judgment, as opposed to a legal argument, but that doesn’ t make it any less valid.
Hamlet, the little tet-a-tet I’ve been having with Saen has only been about Saen’s argument that Gov. Ryan’s action was legally improper.
I’m acting here only as Anal Lawyer Guy, not taking a position on Gov. Ryan’s action from a moral/political POV. 
Sua
Well Sua, I ain no lawyer, as I am sure you guessed. Just an average Joe who likes to think that the ones we give higher powers to would appreciate the reasons they are there and just how we feel about “King’s Justice” and all of that.
Semantically speaking, I am wrong. And admitted it before when I said “if not illegal…”. Taking away my specific errors in use of words, my arguement still stands. I am not exactly pro-death penalty. Nor am I against it. I am for the people’s justice. As long as it is done properly. And, if I am against anything, It is absolute powers that take away the powers that were instilled in the people… Especially if they are abused in the context that I listed. Your rebuttle to my arguements supports, in a way, my arguement that he did it just because he could.
Legally improper? Maybe not. But improper nonetheless. And, I would personally like to see a change in the law about the pardoning powers given to governers. Something that would make it less arbitrary and more justice directed.
A few thoughts from a reporter who has been covering Ryan and his deliberations on the death penalty:
_ As has been pointed out, Ryan did not commute all the sentences because he lacked time to review them individually. He said he and his staff had reviewed each one carefully. He simply decided that picking and choosing was not appropriate.
Personally, I would not have reached the same conclusion. I would have taken the recommendations of my blue-ribbon death penalty commission and applied them to past cases, using that as guideline for who gets off death row. Convicted on the word of jailhouse snitch? Commuted. Represented by incompetent lawyer? Commuted. Mitigating factors not brought up at sentencing? Commuted.
But I’m not the one who had to clean up the mess left by crooked cops, overzealous prosecutors and lazy judges. Ryan was the one who had to make the tough decisions about a lousy system.
_ Some of the 13 “exonerated” inmates may be guilty.
Most of them, it is now clear, did not commit the crimes for which they were convicted. A few, however, had their convictions reversed because of insufficient evidence and prosecutors decided they did not have a strong enough case to try again. I’m not saying the men deserve to fry – far from it. I’m just saying not everyone caught up in this mess is “innocent.”
_ Ryan is being disingenuous when he complains that the Illinois Legislature would not pass the reforms needed to make the system work.
When his commission suggested the reforms last spring, Ryan himself said he did not agree with all of them. He suggested lawmakers delay any action until their fall session. By the time the fall session rolled around, Ryan had pissed everyone off by inserting the reform measures into a completely unrelated bill.
That bill was doomed for reasons that had nothing to do with the merits of the reforms, and Ryan never pushed for the reforms to be considered on their own. In other words, Ryan grandstanded instead of using his considerable legislative skills to get a bill passed.
_ Ryan seems to genuinely believe he is doing the right thing. I don’t think he is consciously using this issue to polish his image. But you have to wonder whether he would have seized this so tightly if he still had a career to worry about. This seems like a way he could look at himself in the mirror every morning when prosecutors and voters were screaming about government corruption.
_ Ryan never knew what he wanted to accomplish.
Sometimes he would rule out blanket commutations; other times he would say it was on the table. Sometimes he seemed to oppose the death penalty; other times he simply wanted it applied correctly. Sometimes he was interested only in keeping innocent people from being executed; other times he was interested in the broader issue of making sure capital punishment was applied uniformly and that even the guilty got fair treatment.
People feel betrayed because Ryan was too confused and inarticulate to explain what he wanted to do with the death penalty. He always left any group, whether death penalty opponents or victims’ families, feeling that he was on their side. When he finally had to make a decision, some were bound to not just disagree but feel betrayed.
Bottomline, no killers are walking free and no innocent people are being executed. The ones who committed awful crimes are serving the same life sentences given to the vast majority of awful criminals.
Diogones, I usually don’t agree with you, but that was classic. 
Saen, cite please? (bolding mine)
Fear Itself, you’re a piece of work. You’ve got everyone figured out…sheesh. :rolleyes:
In my case, milroyj, yes it does.
Elucidator, I agree with you. There should be some fallout from the police, da’s, investigators, etc. who participated in these injustices. Sadly that’s not the case. In America it’s supposed to be ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, but I fear it’s actually the other way around. 
Damn Sauceman, that was a great first post, actually a great post. I am also somewhat of a conservative and have the fckg gall to actually be against the death penalty and against abortion. Oh the horror. But then there are some of us who think. Welcome to the SDMB. 
** Ptahlis** your story is sad, and I feel for you. But I believe you’re mixing justice with revenge or retribution. I believe Ryan brought this out in his speech. Killing someone in no way brings justice, it only brings revenge. Sorry if you have a problem with this.
Spavined Gelding what a thoughtful and meaningful post, Wow!
Gee, milroyj, stop with the gory stories, I’m sure the cases were sad. What, exactly are you trying to prove?
Firewitch, move to Texas, already. :rolleyes:
I’ve read the entire thread to this point and it’s been interesting. I believe those pro death penalty posters, hamlet, milroyj, saen and others are hiding behind a word called justice but really meaning revenge. Refer to my first quote from Diogenes.
Duhhhhhh… Okie George.
8th Amendment for starters.
And why Capital Punishment is not in spte of the 8th amendment.
:dubious:
Umm… it’s actually called punishment. That is the reason I am not against the death penalty. Nor, do I think it is the only form of punishment to mete out. I can take it or leave it. Certainly, I am not in favor of rehabilitating them. Life sentences are not for rehabilitation either. And the Illinois people say that the just punishment for certain crimes is to take away what they consider is the most valuable thing you have. Your life.
I moved from a state that killed 33 inmates last year alone, to a state that has only killed one in almost 40 years. I am not going into withdrawels. And I actually forgot that Colorado even had the death penalty. I had to look it up to make sure I remembered correctly. So, to me it is about justice. I hear about some attrocity committed and like any red blooded Texan 
, fantasize about having the guy hanging in my garage for one night with just a pair of needle nose pliers. But I am not bloodthirsty. My faith teaches me that he will get his due in the end no matter how he goes out.
Your right. Illinois doesn’t use torture as punishment. Illinois only uses it as investigatory tool.
I, for one, am glad you liked Diogenes’s quote. Lets me know you prefer sound bites to substance. IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS, which I doubt because you seem to think I’m pro-death penalty, you would find, probably 4 times, that no one supports the death penalty for innocents. However, there are people who are gasp, guilty, in fact, in real life, on death row. Ryan didn’t bother with those.
That the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. Saen gave that to you.
At least we agree in our disdain for FearItself. Now if I could just get you to stop abusing the smilies…
**
I too am upset that there have been no charges filed in Burge’s case. However, just for your edification, there were civil penalties, and criminal charges brought against investigators, etc. in the Jeanine Nicarico case. The “DuPage 7”, as they were called, were tried and acquitted for their participation in that case.
I won’t dignify this with a response. Except to say stop it with the smilies.
I repeat, I’m not pro death penalty. I’m not hiding behind anything. I don’t think the death penalty has to be strictly for revenge, and I may actually support it in cases of the murder of law enforcement and correctional guards, and in cases of multiple murders. It certainly has an element of retribution, but it is also society’s expression of the view that there are some things that are so heinous and damaging, that they deserve the ultimate penalty. Also, as in the case of the ones on death row who have killed while in prison, there is definitely a specific deterrence effect.
OK, Hamlet, I apologize; on review, you’re not pro-death penalty, sorry.
With saen I was pointing out ‘not using torture’ line vs. those 4 freed who were tortured. He could have phrased it differently. It was more of a joke than anything.
The smilies are my Achilles heel, I just love the little boogers.
;j :smack: and any others I didn’t use the last time.
Philo, just to help you out:
:dubious: :eek: :o :mad: :wally
spooje- I’m going to kiss you on the mouth for that, heterosexuality be damned.
blanx
Olentzero- well, your cite does seem to show that there was a rogue cop, who some decades ago did use “torture”- and he had (at least) the complicity of several other officers. However- the two poor dudes mentioned in the article as being tortured do not seem to be amoung the 4 guys who were commuted as their convictions were “obtained by torture”.
But here is my point- some convictions are absolutely “doubt free”. They were caught in the act, and we have eyewinesses, forensic evidence and a confession. Not to mention that they freely & openly admit it, even now, and their attorney doesn’t even try to suggest there is doubt. Some of these are for repeat killers, or those who commited particulary heinous crimes. These kinds of cases are more common than you might think.
Now- if the point of the commutations was “doubt”- these should not have been included. They were all commuted- thus, the Gov did not commute the sentences because of “doubt” or becuase the 'system is flawed"- he commuted thm based upon his personal beleifs. However, the “law of the Land” in his State contridicts these personal beleifs- but as Gov, he swore an oath to “uphold & defend” that Law.
And you see- this kind of thing just leads to a backlash. Many Americans are moderates on the whole issue- I am one of them. When some Governor throws his oth out the window like this, and does something so very radical- it just pushes us into the “pro-DP” camp. Just like in CA, when a very Liberal CA Supreme Court tried to throw out the DP.
If Ryan had commuted 90% of the sentences- there could be an arguement that he was doing it becuse of recent “doubts”. But he went overboard. Thus, the voters will likely rise up, and put curbs on, as the Moderates will join the Pro camp.
When you talk about “doubts” and “flawed system”- us moderates listen, and then we will support an overhaul. But when you talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater- we figure you’re not going to be reasonable anyway, and stop listening.
Now, in the case of first offenders, I’d be in favour of a citizen panel that could put off the execution for say up to a decade (OK, maybe 20 years…)- assuming the perp insists he really is innocent- and have the authority to order the DA to supply evidence to investigators hired by the perp, his family, or outside groups. This would pretty well stop any “doubtful” cases. This would be a good “overhaul”. I’d listen to any reasonable reform or compromise.
So- if you are anti-DP- and you want us moderates to join you- or even listen to you- come up with REFORMS. Of course, these reforms will reduce the number of executions- and that is GOOD, right? Now, I know that they won’t get rid of the DP entirely, which is what you want. But it seems like a compromise will work. Simply holding your breath, having a tantrum and screaming “the DP is immoral” won’t.
Or is it that reforms are just what you don’t want? Maybe some think that if the system is flawed enough, the voters will rise up & throw the whole damn thing out. Thus reforms will delay that glorious day. If you think that- then I can’t help but feel sorry for you- and the hundreds of dudes who will die while you wait for that day.
Exactly. The problem is Ryan’s “throw out the baby with the bathwater” blanket commutation. He said he (and his staff) reviewed all 167 cases. So if he found police or prosecutorial misconduct, incompetent legal representation, and/or new evidence that materially affected the cases, he SHOULD have commuted those particular sentences, not all 167.
As DrDeth pointed out, there were no such doubts in a (not small) number of cases. I read an interview yesterday, which I don’t have at hand right now, but it was with the father of someone who killed a police officer. The father himself, in the interview, said he knew his son killed the officer, he just didn’t want him to face the death penalty. Which is probably how any father would feel, but why should Gov Ryan have commuted that sentence? (Assume there were no extenuating cirumstances like police torture or tainted evidence or whatever, and none has been presented.) Because he felt sorry for the killer or the killer’s family? Because of the Governor’s personal or perhaps religious beliefs? To draw attention away from a possible indictment of his own? To win the Nobel Peace Prize?
If Gov Ryan had commuted 150 sentences, and laid out the reason why for each one, I think people on both sides would have accepted it. And people on both sides would be more likely to work towards fixing the real problems that exist in the system. But to say, in effect, “The system is broke, I won’t take responsibility for making an actual decision, I’ll just give everybody a pass” really sucks. The commutations may have been legal, but that doesn’t make them right.
Give everybody a pass? Got a question for you. Which do you think is worse for you death by lethal injection or spending the rest of your natural life in prison? It’s an easy question to type an answer to, but a hard one to answer.
I agree with this statement. He should have done it on a case by case basis.
As I said, I think the DP is appropriate in some cases. Ryan’s action, though, was far better than no action at all.
Just a word about this. I guess a couple of them could have been caught in the act. But we have seen enough police misconduct in Chicago to cast doubt on most confessions. And eyewitness testimony, though the most compelling at trial, is the least reliable. (I can provide cases from around the nation where eyewitness’s were mistaken, coerced, or just out and out lied for their own reasons)
For the 167, I would be interested to see the foresnic evidence. Weapons, fingerprints, hair and fiber, etc… That’s the only truly compelling evidence, IMO.
And a final word. IMO, no ‘jailhouse informant’ should ever, EVER be allowed to testify. :o :o :o :o
…so why didn’t Ryan go by a case by case basis? Time? Too much effort required?
Ryan described "the death penalty process “arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral”(emphasis mine.)
The death penalty process argueably begins from the moment the first police officer arrives at the scene of the crime-and would conclude at the execution of the convict.
An investigation of each of the 167 cases would not only take a whole lot of time and money-but could quite possibly result in a bigger loss of confidence in the justice system than what the public are experiencing at the moment.
Just imagine what a * proper * investigation into each of these cases would entail. Some of these cases go back decades-memories of witnesses would no longer be reliable, and other evidence may have been returned or even destroyed.
Where could misconduct have happened? Almost anywhere along the line something improper may have happened: torture, as cited above, may just be the tip of the iceberg. Prosecutorial misconduct, police making assumptions of guilt-then making the case fit the facts instead of the other way around, forced confessions, improper proceedure, false evidence, imcompetant defense, these are all things that at least need to be * considered * by any investigating body. Each step of the process would need to be examined-from the person who took the fingerprints to the person who took the evidence at the evidence locker. This would be, of course, the only way to ensure that all aspects of the case were looked into fairly.
Now how would we assemble such a task force? Nobody from the State, surely, and what would the size of this task force have to be in order to process 167 cases properly, in a timely manner?
…and what would the fall out of this be? Imagine if some death row inmates had to be released because of improper proceedure somewhere along the line. Or the effect on public morale when retired policeman who have offered thirty years of sterling service are hauled up and charged with possible crimes.
…to those who argue “but these cases are open and shut! The evidence is clear! He admitted it and there are witnesses!” I reply with a conservative and unapologetic “bollocks” . When the Death Penalty Process reaches the “conviction” phase, after all appeal’s are exhausted, the public have an expectation that the convict guilty beyond reasonable doubt. When it is found that 11 people sitting on death row are innocent- ** presumptions of a working process have to be reassessed. ** The guilt of all of those on death row becomes doubtful.
[q] Report author Professor James Liebman said: "It’s not one case, it’s thousands of cases. It’s not one state, it’s almost all of the states. [/q]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/787416.stm
…if I was in Govenor Ryan’s position-I would have made the same choice. There are no guarentee’s on what would happen when the new regime came in-and I would not want to be the one who chose who lived and who died.
cites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/787416.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030111_1639.html
Allow me to introduce you to the Death Row Ten - ten former inmates of Illinois’ Death Row (out of a total of 50 individual cases) whose confessions were extracted by Cmdr. Jon Burge, under conditions which scores of organizations - Amnesty International and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office among them - have verified as torture. Here are their names:
[ul]
[li]Stanley Howard[/li][li]Madison Hobley[/li][li]Aaron Patterson[/li][li]Leroy Orange[/li][li]Leonard Kidd[/li][li]Andrew Maxwell[/li][li]Ronald Kitchen[/li][li]Derrick King[/li][li]Reginald Mahaffey[/li][li]Jerry Mahaffey[/ul][/li]
Now, from a Yahoo! article, the names of the four men granted pardons two days before the blanket commutation:
[ul][li]Madison Hobley[/li][li]Stanley Howard[/li][li]Aaron Patterson[/li][li]Leroy Orange[/ul][/li]
So perhaps the two people from my cite weren’t among the four pardoned, but there’s plenty more evidence that Burge was a very big cog in a gross miscarriage of justice.
Ah, but the system that put the verifiably guilty on Death Row also put the verifiably innocent on Death Row. That, to me, is a very strong argument for doing away with the death penalty entirely.
I certainly support reforms of the penal system, and if the death penalty were reformable, I’d support that as well. But a commission put together by Ryan to investigate this very subject, while coming up with eighty needed reforms, were very clear that even full implementation of those reforms still wouldn’t guarantee that wrongly convicted people would end up on Death Row - and executed. If it still won’t run right even with all the repairs, there’s very little choice left but to trash it completely.
is that so many of the death sentences would have been overturned by DNA tests, that the Gov pardoned ALL of them to keep that information from coming out. In trying to cover his ass, he has also probably pardoned all lot who do deserve to die.