Death Row emptied in Illinois, courtesy of soon-ex Gov. Ryan

Great Debates
41

Ryan tried to get the legislature to pass a fair and constitutional death penalty law, which they failed to do. He was left with three days in office and no other choice. It’s sort of hard to expect a person you dont’ know (the incoming Gov.) to continue the work that you wish do finish.

Others have suggested going through and examining the cases of each man on death row. How long would that take? How many of those deserving death, as you put it, would be forced to sit and wait while people go over their individual cases and decide whether or not they will actually die at the hands of the state?

The gist of my argument being that if Ryan didnt’ at least attempt to sort out the royal pooch-screw that was the death sentence in Illinois, then no one would and more innocent people would probably be executed at the hands of an indifferent state.

You say it makes a mockery of the law. The law was put on hold several years ago because the law is unfair. 17 innocent men would have been killed due to the law you place so much faith in.

The state of Illinois can, and probably will, resume their blessed state-sanctioned killings as soon as Ryan leaves office.
[this is off-topic]

More than likely.
It boils down to this simple statement:
taking another person’s life is immoral.
I believe that statement. I believe it without tampering. I dont’ have to say “except” when I say that sentence.

–greenphan

42

—So I submit again, that he did it just because he could.—

Clearly, this is not the case, so you’re wasting your time repeating it.

43

Not sure we can chalk it up entirely to His Governorship’s morality and sense of justice, either.

The way I understand it was this: Some of these guys on Death Row “Had Their Day In Court,” were found guilty, and sentenced to die.

Later, evidence was found that proved that these few men did NOT commit the crimes, and/or that the evidence against them was obtained in illegal ways (i.e., torture) or that the evidence was in some way dodgy or shaky (the testimony of one man, who was a junkie or crook of some sort, who claimed that Joe Blow had confessed to him while they shared a cell).

SO: either they were not guilty, or the system cheated real bad to nail the case against them… or, perhaps, in some cases, both. The bottom line was this: Those guys should not have been sentenced to die.

Now this leaves the Governor in an unpleasant position. Being soft on crooks can have ugly political consequences, not only for you, but for your political party – anyone ask Michael Dukakis how much mileage George Bush Sr. got out of that Willie Horton craziness, right?

Much safer just to leave these guys in jail.

But wait! Some of them are either not guilty, or are in prison due to police/judicial misconduct! If the Governor lets them rot and/or be executed… then his political opponents will be able to paint both HIM and HIS PARTY as “the filthy maggots who let innocent human beings be murdered by a rotten corrupt system.”

Man, the opposition party sure could make some hay on THAT one, don’cha think? Definitely clean up on the minority vote, at least, don’cha think?

…so what does the Governor do?

Simple. The guys who should be set free? Set them free. Their convictions were wrongly obtained, one way or another.

All the other guys on death row? Their convictions are now in doubt. They’re all going to get a new trial, or be set free, or some damn thing. Except, of course, the ones who will be executed before they get the chance.

Only one thing you really CAN do. Commute their sentences. The Governor doesn’t have enough remaining time in office to investigate all the individual cases, but this way, he can take credit for “attempting to right a wrong” without accidentally releasing any serial killers or whatever.

I don’t think it takes a moral epiphany to do something like this. Merely an observant eye for political realities and necessities. I’m glad innocent men aren’t going to die, but I dunno if I think the Guv deserves a Nobel Prize or anything…

44

Would you agree that it is a move in the right direction if one innocent life is saved?

45

Very well said, Wang-Ka.

46

These 157 people who had their sentences commuted were all found guilty and duly sentenced. If there were some reasonable evidence of wrongdoing on the part of police – such as in the cases of the 4 who were pardoned – or evidence of innocence, or evidence that they were sentenced to death unfairly, then the commutations would be completely appropriate.

There is no such evidence.

Did Ryan have the legal right (as in authority or power) to do what he did? Absolutely.

Did he serve the true interests of justice? Absolutely not. He undoubtedly commuted sentences which were fair, just and appropriately chosen based upon the factors of the individual cases in question. He unilaterally superceded the work of 157 juries and jurors without conducting a thorough and reasonable examination of the facts of each case. (Had that been done, then the commutations could have been made on a case by case basis where appropriate.) He imposed his personal agenda and motivations – whatever they may be – upon a system which was never designed or intended to be manipulated in this fashion, a system which is founded upon the idea that the will of the people be done, not the will of one, unaccountable politician with far-reaching power and complete insulation from any and all repercussions.

This was a huge action. The only justification for such a decision was outright evidence that these sentences were improper as a whole. Anything less than that relegates this decision to the realm of politics. Justice and politics do not belong together.

47

Just to reiterate. The four men pardoned had confessed un duress. Said duress was torture. All four confessions were the result of torture. And all four were conicted on the basis of those confessions. Meaning, without those confessions, they could not have been convicted.

I’m pro=death penalty, but these were bad convictions and the pardon was the right move.

48

The death penalty deserves all the mockery that people with a conscience can muster.

I heard Ryan give a speech on the radio about six months ago - it was quite long, and detailed the process by which he had changed his mind on the death penalty. Anyone who is undecided about the issue should listen to it. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the where/when details.

49

We the people of the state of Illinois also voted for the state legislature that enacted the death penalty, as well as for the judges who imposed it.

50

Does that include the lives of unborn babies?

51

Your point? I’m sure the people of Illinois also voted for dog catcher. Although the dog catcher can’t commute people on the death penalty, the Guv can. Welcome to the system of checks and balances. The Guv was given the power to do this and this power has been around for quite a while. If this was demonstrated to be problematic in the past, it should have been dealt with then.

and what about Scarecrow’s brain? Abortion isn’t really the topic here. Sheesh.

52

Thirteeen not guilty among 156 death row prisoners.

All that guff about “beyond reasonable doubt” looks just like guff to me.

What is being said here is that before all these cases are investigated again, nearly 10% of people convicted beyond reasonable doubt are actually not gulity of the crime that the whole magnificent majesty of the State of Illonois judicial machinery accused them of.

How many more will have their convictions seriously altered ?

If you alone had the power to stop those executions, and you knew that 10% of those convicted were innocent, would you do what you cold to prevent what would turn out to be judicial murders, or would you keep schtum and let them die ?

Its all right to say “we the people” voted for the legislature, but the reality is that just voting for something does not give the state the right to knowingly murder innocent people.

Which is the greater wrong, killing people who have committed no crime, or allowing the governor the power to operate built-in safeguards in unusual situations that the legislature is incapable of reacting to in a timely manner.

Lets say that one case results in a judicial murder that could have been prevented, I should think there would be some scope for some legal action against the state, and the damages claimed would amount to billions in the loonger run, plus the system itself would lose credibilty.

53

But on the same token… he also undoubtedly commuted sentences which were unfair, based on lies and coercion. I’m just one of those softies who feels this is far more in the interests of justice then making sure someone dies because the court system said so.

As for those who say it is politically motivated… to what end exactly? Isn’t the best political strategy not to rock the boat? The Democrat replacing him disagrees with the decision. I rather doubt he’s making many friends in his own party with this. What good is having the support of the anti-death penalty crowd when you’ve alienated half your own party?

My personal take on this is pretty simple. In my eyes a court system that can sentance so many innocent people to die has far too large a margin of error and has lost its moral right to choose who lives and who dies… it had the chance and failed miserably. IMHO (and ONLY IMHO) proving the system that holds life and death in its hands was so horribly corrupt is all the justification the blanket commuting needs.

Oh… and I know I’m not greenphan… but I have to respond to this…

Gee golly willikers… ever notice how you can never hear a pro death-penalty argument without someone completely changing the subject and bringing up this completely different issue? Again… I am not green, but I have three responses for you… take your pick.

1- no no… we’re on page 42… death penalty… are you following along?

2- Actually I’m not anti-capital punishment or pro-life, I’m anti-death.

3- Ok… take a deep breath. It really honest to god IS ok for someone to be against the death penalty AND pro-life… not everyone forms their beliefs based on political platforms.
Oh… and cheers :slight_smile:

54

To all the who are so upset about this:
Do any of you have an actual alternative to dealing with a system that is plainly broken and unfair? What would you do if you found out that 17 people on death row could either be proven to be outright innocent or to have had their confessions tortured out of them? Would you trust that they were the only ones. Why don’t you care that the cops in Illinois are torturing confessions out of innocent people?

55

To all those who are so upset about this:
Do any of you have an actual alternative to dealing with a system that is plainly broken and unfair? What would you do if you found out that 17 people on death row could either be proven to be outright innocent or to have had their confessions tortured out of them? Would you trust that they were the only ones. Why don’t you care that the cops in Illinois are torturing confessions out of innocent people?

56

Thirteeen not guilty among 156 death row prisoners.

All that guff about “beyond reasonable doubt” looks just like guff to me.

What is being said here is that before all these cases are investigated again, nearly 10% of people convicted beyond reasonable doubt are actually not gulity of the crime that the whole magnificent majesty of the State of Illonois judicial machinery accused them of.

How many more will have their convictions seriously altered ?

If you alone had the power to stop those executions, and you knew that 10% of those convicted were innocent, would you do what you cold to prevent what would turn out to be judicial murders, or would you keep schtum and let them die ?

Its all right to say “we the people” voted for the legislature, but the reality is that just voting for something does not give the state the right to knowingly murder innocent people.

Which is the greater wrong, killing people who have committed no crime, or allowing the governor the power to operate built-in safeguards in unusual situations that the legislature is incapable of reacting to in a timely manner.

Lets say that one case results in a judicial murder that could have been prevented, I should think there would be some scope for some legal action against the state, and the damages claimed would amount to billions in the loonger run, plus the system itself would lose credibilty.

57

In all these posts, all the outrage, there seems one glaring omission.

What has become of the men who tortured and railroaded innocent men to a death sentence? What of the men who, in our name and under the cover of Justice, attempted murder in the most cold-blooded and heartless manner possible?

Where is their measure of outrage? Why are none of you cheering fans of mortal vengeance howling for thier blood!

58

My 2 cents:

I think Ryan is a slimeball – and probably a corrupt slimeball at that. BUT this is probably the only thing he’s done right his entire time in office.

Why did he do it? Was it really because he suddenly found a conscience? He was troubled by how many innocent people ended up on death row? He wanted to do one good thing in his four years as governor? He wanted bodyguards when he ends up in jail alongside the men whose sentences he commuted? I dunno. But he did it, and it was the right thing to do.

As has been pointed out here already, these men will still serve life in prison without parole. It’s not like they get to go out and live the good life. But now we don’t have to worry that we might execute an innocent man. And that really is what the point should be here.

59

I was under the impression that due to the discovery that some of these guys had been wrongly convicted… that ALL of those convictions had been thrown into doubt.

I was under the impression that ALL of these convictions, these cases would be reviewed. Those cases which were found to be solid and judicially sound would stand. Those which were not would be retried, or thrown out.

So, basically, what I would expect to happen is that some of these guys will be found to have been rightly convicted. Some will have been found to have been railroaded.

The railroaded guys will either be retried or go free, depending on double jeopardy and all that. The sound convictions will remain in jail. The only change for them is that instead of death, they will spend the rest of their lives in prison.

What’s to beef about? The only thing I can really find to gripe about is the rotten judicial system and the rotten cops who screwed this thing up to begin with.

What, am I supposed to be angry because the guilty ones who were rightly convicted aren’t gonna die? Jeez, I’m pro-death penalty, but I ain’t THAT bloodthirsty…

Although I do think that it would be interesting to arrange for the policemen and others who knowingly participated in the railroading to be sentenced to death.

Or simply to be sentenced to one week to be spent amongst the general prison population… who would be informed of who these people are, and why they are there…

60

To all you people who are stuck on the 13 people who were innocent, what about the people who were caught with a smoking gun in thier hands or something close to it? Those who were undoubtably guilty, based on the evidence? You think they should live? If you do then I suggest you take your rightful stance and say that you are happier that NO ONE is dying here instead of bitching about the judicial system in Illinois. Don’t go on and on saying that you feel that this was the right decision just because of a flawed judicial system when you are really just against the death penalty in general and you consider this a win for you.

The fact of the matter is, as has been stated in this thread several times already, that he should have had all the cases reviewed, pardoned/commuted the people HE felt were innocent instead of throwing away all the work and time of the families of the murdered. Don’t act like this was the only way for him to deal with his personal issues. Hell, he could have commuted 155 and left 12 on death row if there were 12 smoking gun cases, though I am sure there are more than that. There was no reason to commute EVERY one of those.