If I were to catch someone who actually murdered a family member, death would be too good for them, but lucky they would probably recieve it even without the court system.
But my bar for actual guilt is pretty high, like seeing them do it or recieving death threats.
If the COURT system were the only ones to tell me that the person is guilty, even if I hated the person, then in the balance, I would be willing to give up justice in return for making sure that the innocent are given a chance to live rather than be executed.
Well, I agree that a confession ALONE isn’t nessesarily enough- especially if later that confession is repudiated by the Perp, or he claims it was coerced Nor is eyewitness testimony as solid as some like to think. But when we have a perp who confesses- and stands by that confession, even years later- and whose Lawyer does not even try to throw doubt on his guilt- not to mention forensic & other evidence- then we have a case “without doubt”. And many cases are like this- where no-one, not the Perp, or his attorney, nor his family even TRY to assert innocence. But these admitted & guilty-as-hell killers were commuted by Ryan along with those with some vestige of doubt. That’s the wrong part.
So yes- there is a big difference from a “confession” while in Police custody- which may have been coerced- and a continuing public admission of guilt.
However, I agree with you about jailhouse informants- although I will accept they are an important investigative tool, their testimony is doubful at best. If that’s all the DA has- he doesn’t have enough for a conviction, although I would allow a Warrant to be issued on the basis. If that warrant turned up the murder weapon, with the Perps fingerprints all over it, then the DA has a case.
In considering this issue, I can’t help but think about unintended (and tragic) consequences. What are the odds that Ryan’s decision will cause subsequent governors, prosecutors, police commissioners, etc., to be even more rabid in pursuit of “justice,” solely so they can distinguish themselves from his “bleeding heart,” but thereby leading to more errors and more convictions of innocent people?
Well, Cervaise, this is only one small part of what should be a wider program of penal reform. There’s a lot more that needs to be done, and such reform should definitely be geared towards ensuring that people are unable to use the “pursuit of justice” as a political career-booster. This one action, welcome as it is, isn’t the final step.
And what, oh great sage, needs to be done to reform the penal system? And what do you mean that “pursuit of justice” shouldn’t be a political career booster?
There is no doubt that the communtations aren’t the last step, hell, it was a step backward if anything. Many of the reforms suggested by the panel have a lot of merit to them, and the ball is in the legislature’s court to decide how they want to deal with it. There has even been a bill introduced to abolish it. So if you’re anti-death penalty, let your representatives know. Now is the time, cause if it doesn’t happen now, I can’t imagine it happening anytime soon. Time to put up or shut up.
Gotta love how some people think a disagreement on issues grants license for incivility.
There’s plenty that needs to be addressed - the “100-to-1” disparity in sentences handed down for possession of crack vs. powder cocaine, for instance. The tremendous disparity in the breakdown by race of the US prison population. 20 years ago, whites, Blacks, and Latinos were jailed in roughly equal measure - ie, for every 1 white person in prison, there were 1 Black and 1 Latino. Nowadays, the numbers are 17 Blacks - and 18 Latinos - for every 1 white person in prison. Minorities make up less than half the US population, but they commit 97% of the crimes? Please.
I mean that lawyers working the state machine, and others who have political aspirations, shouldn’t used the death penalty as a tool for appearing “tough on crime”. Pushing to “dispense justice” while disregarding questions of actual innocence leads to situations like those in Illinois and Maryland.
Allow me to quote from Gov. Ryan’s January 11th speech regarding the commutations and the Illinois legislature’s involvement in death penalty reform. (All emphases mine.)
And there you have it. The legislature knew about the reforms, had three opportunities during Ryan’s career to implement them, and they either sat on their hands or rejected the reforms outright.
Organizations like the Campaign to End the Death Penalty have been “putting up” for years now. Activism on the part of people and organizations like the CEDP are what got the moratorium in Illinois and Maryland, and are a large part of the public pressure that finally convinced Ryan to act as he did just before he left office. Contacting your representatives in the state or federal legislature is fine, but the evidence shows it’s not enough.
>The tremendous disparity in the breakdown by race of the US prison population. 20 years ago, whites, Blacks, and Latinos were jailed in roughly equal measure - ie, for every 1 white person in prison, there were 1 Black and 1 Latino. Nowadays, the numbers are 17 Blacks - and 18 Latinos - for every 1 white person in prison. Minorities make up less than half the US population, but they commit 97% of the crimes?<
Maybe we should bus in innocent white people to prison so all the crack dealers, rapists and killers don’t feel slighted.
Brilliant riposte, Virgowitch. Would you mind pointing out where I actually said “put more white people in prison to even out the disparity” so we have a foundation for taking your argument seriously?
Incivility? I had no idea you had such a low threshold, so, I will completely and unabashedly apologize for the slight. It was a small comment, and I do not wish you to think I harbor any ill will toward you.
On to the topic at hand. I agree with some of your reforms also. The difference between crack and powder cocaine is just plain wrong, and has, in some jurisdictions, been done away with. The racial disparity you speak of may be a reflection of a problem, but you offered no solution, which was the reason for my initial comment.
I agree that the sentencing of someone to death should not be a politically motivated decision. Of course, neither should the decision to commute the sentence, but that didn’t stop Ryan. And I would call into question your assertion that prosecutors push for the death penalty to help their careers. Not much is worse for a career than knowingly convicting an innocent person.
I didn’t understand this stuff when he said it the first time. The legislature didn’t enact the reforms I wanted so I’ll commute EVERYONES death sentence just to show them? I think we are not so far apart, you and I, Olentzero, on the issue of some of the reforms, I’ve said I agree with some of them. But, as I’ve said before, just because there are some reforms that should be enacted does not change the fact that Ryan should have determined these things on a case by case basis.
If the people of the State of Illinios want to abolish the death penalty, they can and should. But the impression I get is that they don’t want to, and that should be respected by the Executive Branch. One man’s personal judgment shouldn’t overrule the entire legislature and judical branches, nor should it overrule the determination of justice being done on a case by case basis.
They weren’t just reforms he wanted, they were reforms studied and recommended by a panel commissioned by Ryan in response to public outcry against the death penalty, which originally resulted in the moratorium two years ago.
A quote or two from Ryan’s speech:
Ryan has reviewed the death penalty sentences on a case-by-case basis, both personally and assisted by the commission and staff for over three years. How much more time do you need?
That’s a mistaken impression, entirely negated by the fact that public activism put the question of a moratorium on the table two years ago, and continued activism after the moratorium was passed kept the commission going and brought the question of a blanket commutation to the fore.
This isn’t Ryan’s personal judgement. This was a decision based on a commissioned review of the Illinois death penalty stemming from the revelations about the system that brought about a moratorium in the first place. If the people of Illinois wanted the death penalty to continue, there wouldn’t have been such a strong push for the moratorium. If they wanted the death penalty, the commission and its findings would have been quietly allowed to die somewhere during its proceedings. The Illinois legislature had a crystal-clear picture that the people of Illinois did not want the death penalty, and they refused to act on it. The voice of the people was being ignored by those elected to speak for them. Why should Ryan respect the legislature’s decision when it is clearly at odds with the opinions of the population in general, and clearly the wrong decision to make in light of incontrivertible facts?
I’m not defending the right of a governor to circumvent the legislature of his state any time he pleases, to be sure. But this is clearly not a case of a capricious decision.
As a final thought, I’d like to add this paragraph from Ryan’s speech:
So - only a minority of cases eligible for the death penalty actually saw it implemented, the implementation of the death penalty seems to have depended on the county you were in, since circumstances were identical, and the person deemed the most culpable in the crime was not necessarily the person sentenced to death. If you were convinced by these facts that the system was broken, and your state legislature consistently refused to implement reforms that might ameliorate these faults despite strong popular opinion in support of doing so, would you not feel strongly compelled to act as Ryan did? Or would you still cling to the fetish of “legislative inviolability” (or whatever you want to call it) and do nothing?
You know it is odd how the same set of facts can lead dudes to different conclusions. Males also make up a very disparate % of the prison community- but the conclusion drawn is that males simply commit more of the types of crimes that get you sent to prison that females do…not that the courts are sexist. But here, the conclusion seems to be that the Courts are racist since more dudes in prison are minorities. Same set of facts- completely diferent conclusions.:dubious: If the courts were racist- wouldn’t there be a larger % of asians & even Jews?
The type of crimes that get one sent to prison are usually the types of crimes that are commited by poor dudes, and/or guys from bad backgrounds & neigborhoods. Poverty is concentrated in the population of blacks & hispanics. Unfortunate, but true. Not that 'rich white guys" don’t commit crimes- but when they do they are not as often the type of violent or drug ralated crime that gets one sent to prison for a long time. And of course- a good lawyer will help keep one out of prison or even get one off- and OJ is living proof that getting a great legal team is simply a function of having great steaming wads of cash- not race at all.
However, i do doubt your figures here- I know that there are certainly a disparate % of blacks & hispanics- but the last figures i saw had nothing like the vast disparity you quote here.
:dubious:
Olent- when push comes to shove and the DP is put on the ballot- it has always won. Thus the voters clearly want the DP- at least sometimes. This is why the anti-DP- activists fail- rather than REFORM they want to get rid of the DP entirely. The "moderates’ like myself- who are the ones whose vote usually swing these sort of things- will vote for “reforms”, but not for tossing the DP out. Look right here in CA, where it was put on the ballot- and passed heavily, and so have several props to add certain crimes to the list of DP crimes.
And of course- you didn’t come right out & suggest “we send more white dudes to prison”- but you are clearly in favor of correcting the disparity. So there are exactly two ways of doing that- letting criminals go free because they belong to a minority, or putting more white guys IN. Thus his reply= altho flippant, is not entirely bogus. Which do you suggest? Less Minorities, or more white dudes?
If there are wrongly convicted people on Death Row, does it not stand that there may also be wrongly convicted people in the prisons? Is it not true that people can be sent to jail - which is often a vicious, violent place - for non-violent offenses like drug possession? Why send people to something straight out of HBO’s “Oz” for holding a dime bag?
I am not denying that there are people who have committed horrendous crimes and who certainly should be locked away from society for long periods of time, if not the period of their natural lives. But does that mean that this is the case for every person in jail? Our prison population passed the 2 million mark back in 1998 - the largest prison population anywhere on the globe. Are they all criminally insane gang-rapists and murderers? Or have we jailed people whose release will make the streets no more or no less safe than they already are?
Sure there are. Fewer than you think:rolleyes: , but more than most of us hope for. But still, dude- why can only minorities be sent to prison wrongly? So can white guys, you know.:rolleyes:
Now, there are also laws on the books, with mandatory penalities- that you seem to think are unfair & unjust. But these laws were passed by OUR elected representatives, and in some case, directly by “the People” themselves. And sure, these laws penalize the poor more than th erich- but still the choice to obey or disregard the law is up to the individual.
So why do we send dudes to prison for selling small amounts of drugs? Because 'we the people" from whom all Laws flow- have told our representatives we want such laws. Of course- I haven’t, personally, but…
The real question is- why do dudes who know that they’ll go to prison for that ‘dime bag’ still '“do the crime”? A simple solution would be to NOT HAVE THE DAMN DRUG IN THE 1ST PLACE.:eek:
They made the choice- now live with it. I am not generally in favor of strong drug laws, but the whining from dudes who knew it was illegal (and even “unfair”) but still did the crime anyway- grates on me even worse.
“If you can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime”.
Now where did I say being wrongly convicted only happened to minorities?
What I have done, however, is misquote statistics. The dramatic increase I mentioned above is not for the prison population overall, but the increase in ratios of non-violent drug convictions among whites, Blacks, and Latinos in New York State. The relevant graph, taken from a report by the Justice Policy Institute, is here. What it shows is that in 1980, there were roughly equal numbers of NVDC spread out among those three ethnic groups. In 1997, however, the number of NVDC for whites had only increased 95%, while for Blacks it had increased 1,311% and for Latinos a whopping 1,615%. Combined with an increase in prison spending and a decrease in state funding for public universities, that meant that there were more Blacks and Latinos in jail than there were in the State University of NY and the City University of NY systems as a whole.
Has drug use actually mushroomed out of control in the Black and Latino communities, but not in the white community? I find that very hard to believe.
New York is not alone in the trend away from spending on education towards spending on prisons. The JPI has another report here which shows the general trends in state spending. The increase in corrections spending (30%) matches almost exactly the decrease in spending on cash assistance for public welfare and higher education combined (31.2%). In other words, this isn’t simply about “doing the time if you do the crime” but denying those at the bottom of society the opportunity to get themselves out of poverty and instead offering them a twenty-five square foot cell when they steal some food so they can eat, pick up a dime bag so they can forget for a while how much shit their lives are, or crack under the strain and do something really horrendous.
As for what “the people” want… take a gander at Table 3 in the second report. It might surprise you.
OK, find me one person who is in prison because “they stole some food so they can eat”- and who had no other reasonable alternative. Some dude steals a loaf of bread to feed his family- he isn’t going to be sent to PRISON. That scenario belongs in a french historical novel, not real life.
:rolleyes:
