Diogenes, your use of text that is both red and bold really gets your point across.
You do realize that no executions were taking place, right? The word ‘moratorium’ ring a bell?
There was plenty of time to review each and every case. That Ryan choose not to is dissappointing; It shows a supreme lack of confidence in the legal system. (Which is by no means perfect, but it is all we have.)
Sophistry. All seventeen of those men who were proven innocent had at one time been “proven guilty.” You don’t know who the hell is guilty and who isn’t, and citing convictions is obviously an unconvincing tactic, since DP convictions in Illinois have clearly been shown to have no credibility. Sheesh, I can’t understand the emotion on the pro DP side of this. Is it that important to you to kill people? Isn’t it worth commuting all the sentences if even one innocent life gets saved?
The moratorium would only have lasted as long as the incoming governor wanted it to last. Ryan clearly didn’t trust the new guy to fairly investigate every case, or to continue the moratorium (and neither do I). Ryan did the only thing he could to make sure that no more innocent lives were sacrificed to self-serving politics and the careerism of prosecutors.
No, I can’t prove that Fedell Caffey didn’t kill anyone, although I am not going around trying to convince others of his innocence, as you are with the inmates’ guilt.
In a state that has exonerated 17 men who were on death row, I think it’s kind of simple to voluntarily assume that just because a person has been tried and convicted that they are neccessarily guilty of the crime. Fuck, some even confessed and were later found innocent.
I’m not saying that Caffey is innocent. I don’t really know the details of his case (I do remember it, vaguely, from when it happened, though). Although he is on death row, what if he is innocent? Should he still be executed, simply due to his conviction? Remember…17 men.
I really don’t believe that you understand the severity of what 17 men freed from death row means; at least, I’m not picking that up from your posts. “They are guilty”? Sounds like a death-worthy condemnation right there. Or is that sentence incomplete? They are guilty because…?
-greenphan
BTW, that’s the first time since I’ve been on the SDMB that I’ve ever used a color tag. I did it now because the two facts I highlighted seem to keep getting ignored by the DP proponants. I have yet to see one of those posters opposing Ryan’s decision respond in any way to the fact that cops tortured confessions out of innocent people. The question has been asked several times by me and others what should happen to those cops, and nobody wants to answer it. I was hoping maybe somebody would respond if I screamed it.
**milroyj **
I reread my last post and realized that I sound really snide. I’m a very sarcastic person and that doesn’t translate well into the antiseptic internet.
I apologize for my snide tone. I didn’t mean any disrespect.
–greenphan
This is quite an informative and overall exhausting thread, but here are my two cents.
**William Darr, who is now the state banking commissioner, but he used to work in Ryan’s secretary of state administration. Federal prosecutors investigating corruption under Ryan recently named Darr as someone who collected a state paycheck while working on political campaigns.
Ryan appointed Darr to a part-time job on the state Property Tax Appeal Board, where he will make $44,321 a year.
Ryan also appointed retiring Sen. Doris Karpiel (R-Carol Stream) and his environmental adviser Lynne Padovan to the Illinois Pollution Control Board. He named Sen. William Shaw, a Dolton Democrat who lost his election in November, the state’s “small business utility advocate.”
All three will make $99,414, each .*
Now, how this effects his commutation of those convicts on death row is critical, because it shows that he is willing to do anything to preserve his own career, even and especially to alter and undermine the will of the people of this state. William Shaw for those who do not know him, is the epitome of the Chicago Political Machine. He is as crooked as any alderman or ward boss, and far more connected. He receives a 99k a year job for doing a job in which no one has even heard of, providing services no one has ever used.
( I say “no one” because even though I know some have, this job is pure political pork, and the majority of Illinoisians will never even see or know of this person or his job)
The reality about the death penalty is that, like our own system of justice, it is flawed. You will recieve not an arguement from this person about that, but I will argue that because the system was developed by humans, to deal with human problems, and humans by nature are flawed, that the flaws we observe are an integral part of ourselves, and therefore an integral part of the system we create to deal with human criminal problems. Moreover, I don’t believe we can create a system that is without a flaw, and that while it is imperfect and could use some fine tuning, that the system is all we have, and should be used until we find a suitable replacement.
On that note, anyone know of any apartments for rent in Texas?
FireWitch, it sounds like you’re willing to accept a few executions of innocent people as part of a “flawed” system.
Are you willing to be one of those innocent people executed?
Actually, that’s too easy, how about this:
Would you be willing to let your wife or your child be one of those innocents?
So, you’re saying that a system which decides who may live and who dies, despite being flawed and making errors, should be used because we dont’ have a ready alternative ready? The system that wrongfully convicted 17 men should still be used because it’s all we have, right?
That is one of the most apathetic statements I’ve ever heard. It almost sounds like you really dont’ care what happens, just as long as something, anything, is done in the name of justice.
And I agree with you when you say that George Ryan is a corrupt governor. Horribly corrupt; misused his office for monetary and patronage-ic (that’s definitely not a word, but you get the idea) gain. I dont’, however, believe that that takes anything away from the validity of the mass commutations. Sure, he’s a creep of a governor, but on one of his last days in office, he did a very noble thing.
It definitely won’t improve his image, though; every newspaper article I read about the commutations mentions at the bottom the possibility that Ryan only did it to create a good, lasting image for posterity.
–greenphan
Diogenes. I would, as is my nature, cry outrage if it were members of my inner circle accused, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. If, of course, they didn’t actually DO it.
Using the “there are no athiests in foxholes” mindset, I would hazard a guess that very few people in prison actually would admit to doing what they were accused, tried, and convicted of doing, this does not make it so. Having spent a very,very short time in jail (2 days for underage drinkingmany years ago) I think that merely sending someone to jail or prison in and of itself is cruel. That having been said, I believe also in the concept of acceptable risk, I would rather, in my opinion, see one hundred innocent men be jailed for a day, than one guilty man walk free for an hour, no matter the crime. The facts, minus the platitudes, are that people who are accused of crimes worthy of such draconian penalties are rarely “innocent” and are, even in if in a karmic fashion, being repayed for wrongs done.
And yes, if my wife were to murder another person with grevious and excessive actions and malicious intent, then my only answer is to hang her from the highest yardarm, and let that be that, and I love my wife, I don’t care so much about Fedell Caffey.
**Greenphan said:
So, you’re saying that a system which decides who may live and who dies, despite being flawed and making errors, should be used because we dont’ have a ready alternative ready? The system that wrongfully convicted 17 men should still be used because it’s all we have, right?
That is one of the most apathetic statements I’ve ever heard. It almost sounds like you really dont’ care what happens, just as long as something, anything, is done in the name of justice. **
Green, I disagree. To be apathetic would be to say that I couldn’t care less about the disposition of the criminal subsequent to the crime, this is not true at all, I care very much. I want to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed, and those who deserve it, be put to death. so in a way, yes, I am saying “do something, do anything in the name of justice.” The penalty though, as it stands now, is no deterrent to crime. The death penalty is a soft, weak and tepid prospect in which the criminal who has committed an act so abominable, that he, or she, should be put to death, is not even remotely frightened enough to not have committed the act in the first place. Being put to death means going to sleep, how milquetoast. For my money, and if we played by my rules, there would be a bit of creativity in the execution of the death penalty. It would hurt, there would be fear, and horror and meaning to the final pennance, such meaning that might actually deter someone from the acts worthy of such a punishment. I can guarantee that public beheadings or being pressed to death by weights, or pulled apart by teams of horses would deter those who are not mentally ill, in some, if not most cases.
Does this sound a bit too 16th century? Indeed, but crime in 2003 is far too rampant, and those that commit that crime are far too brazen. The system that accuses, tries, convicts and punishes them, far, FAR too lenient and permissive. Does that kind of permissiveness come with the advancement of civilization? I would say no, I would guess that the kind of weakness that our prisoners are shown by the system is indicative of the softer side of human nature to believe in people and hope for the best, no matter how misguided the belief, and no matter how often that belief is proven wrong.
We’ve discussed the idiocies of juries letting obviously guilty people go. I think they could err the other way, too. And we’ve also heard the stories of inept, incompetent, unconscious (actually caught sleeping during the trial), and sometimes criminal, defense lawyers and unethical, abusive prosecutors.
How was this fact determined? The reason 4 people were pardoned from death row was gross police misconduct(torture of a suspect to gain a confession). As in ‘they acted in an unethical, and sometimes criminal manner’.
I believe in the DP. But something has run afowl in the criminal justice system in Illinois. I agree that all those cases should be re-investigated, one by one. But I don’t think it’s likely that the incoming Governor would want to continue that.
It does seem fishy that Ryan waited till a week before his term was up to do anything. But something had to be done. Especially seeing as how Illinois Att. Gen. Jim Ryan was the lead prosecutor in the Nicarico murder case.
Diogenes is right on target. I applaud Gov. Ryan for having the guts to undo possible future executions of the innocent. The commuted are still in prison without parole for life. The difference is, if we find out later we convicted the wrong guy, we can undo the sentence. It’s really tough to undo an execution. Do some people have such a thirst for blood that you can tolerate killing 17 innocent people in order to kill the truly guilty? Our justice system is not perfect. Until it is, we have no business killing anybody.
Personally, I think the death penalty is a good idea. In theory, at least.
And I also think that it should not be used. Not now, at least. Not untill there is some serious looking-into the justice system and how the death penalty is applied. And I think this case demonstrates it very well. I mean, holy fuck people. Ten percent?? MORE than ten percent, even? More than ten percent of the people on death row were found to be not-guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, after having been convicted by a jury (Unanimously; The jury was unanimously wrong in those cases). To be blunt, that’s pretty fucked up. Same with many of the cases cited above, many of which are just about blatant travesties.
And those 17 are a minimum. Who’s to say that others on death row weren’t innocent, either? Up untill this, those 17 were “guilty,” remember. And yes, some people that were entirely guilty will be getting life inprisonment instead of death (They are not “walking” or “going free” or anything else like that; They’re serving their entire lives in prison). Frankly, if that’s what it takes to shake things up and get some attention on the problems with the application of justice, then I think it’s well worth it. It certainly got my attention. The justice system, and the government as a whole, should be about protecting the innocent first, not just punishing the guilty.
I’d like things to get a lot better sorted out before the death penalty is used again. With the number of cases in that cite above, I think the system needs some serious re-evaluation. A system that allows that many likely-innocent (Or later, proven to be innocent, as in a few of those cases) people to be executed, is deeply troubled.
And I also have to add my voice to those that don’t find the victims to be truely hurt, even by guilty people that are now inprisoned for life instead of being killed. The guilty are out of society forever. They are not coming back, they can’t get at anyone outside the prison. The only thing the victims families are being denied is the satisfaction of having this person killed. How is it more just that someone is killed instead of inprisoned forever? If someone is truely reprehensible, with no hope of being “rehabilitated,” and who is proven to be guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, then, and only then, do I think that the death penalty should be used. Vengence should not enter into it. Go read some of those cited cases above; The quest for vengence is what killed many of those people.
I’m generally pro-death-penalty, but I would much rather err on the side of the innocent.
by Firewitch
If someone killed my cat I’d be mad enough to kill, too. But my weapon of choice would not be a syringe full of thiopental. You’re only fooling yourself if you believe euthanasia gives murderers what they deserve. The only ones who get hurt from it are the people who don’t really deserve to get hurt. And it doesn’t bring victims back to life or erase grief.
Pardoning the 4 people on Friday was the absolute right thing to do. Commuting all of the rest of those on death row was also the right thing to do.
People who focus on the idea that these individuals had a trial and were convicted should keep in mind the case of Madison Hobley, one of the men pardoned on Friday.
Madison’s defense lawyer was impaired during the course of his trial- the lawyer was an alcoholic, and slept through parts of the trial.
Madison was beaten into confessing by the police. This was a case of arson, and Madison confessed that he started the fire outside of the third floor apartment where the people died. One problem. The fire and arson investigator’s report, taken prior to the confession, said that the fire started on the ground floor. The police then got the investigator to lie about where the fire started.
The Chicago police hid evidence, including a gas can which was never disclosed to the defense.
Madison Hobley had no business being convicted, and no business being on death row.
Even for those who we believe to be guilty, killing them does nothing to bring the victim’s back. And as the family of the victims know better than anyone, death is final. Life in prison is no picnic.
I’m thankful I live in a state which has never had the death penalty. I wish I could say the same about the rest of the country.
I don’t think you understood my hypothetical. My question was, would you be willing to let your wife be wrongfully executed in order to ensure that you get all the guilty people?
Lots of people in prison claim that they’re innocent, anf do you know what? Some of them are. Please expand on your statement that you would rather jail a hundred innocent people for a day than let one guilty person go free. Are you willing to kill innocent people? That’s the question. Are you willing to be killed for a crime you didn’t commit in order to guarantee that no guilty person goes free. Are you willing to kill your wife? Are you willing to kill my wife? How can you possibly say with a straight face that such a system would have anything to do with justice?
I, for one, am damn glad it happened. The amount of activism that went on at the grassroots level provided the impetus both for the moratorium and for this commutation, and really goes to prove that change can be brought about from below. Yes, I know full well Ryan ultimately made the decision, but if there hadn’t been organizations on the ground like the Campaign to End the Death Penalty working for years on the subject, I think it doubtful Ryan would have gotten as far as the moratorium.
Ryan’s past political career is completely irrelevant to the matter. Commissions charged with researching the subject in Illinois came up with 80 reforms that could have improved the death penalty system, but even that report stated that with every reform in place, there was no guarantee that no innocent person would be executed. All the blather about him trying to shed some of the slime and/or make his successor look bad is a distraction when you consider the fact that scores of legal and activist organizations were saying this was a necessary decision to take and had the facts and analyses to back it up.
In Maryland, we’re actually facing a situation that’s been discussed in this thread - Gov. Glendening issued a moratorium on executions and has gone no farther. His successor, Ehrlich, has vowed to lift that moratorium when he assumes office on Wednesday. This despite the fact that the University of Maryland, under a commission from Glendening, recently completed a study that shows that the race of the victim, the race of the accused, and the location of the crime (e.g., an accused murderer in Baltimore City is 26 times more likely to be sentenced to death than a murderer in Baltimore County) are greater determinants in the application of the death penalty than the nature of the crime itself. Reaching a sentence of death only proves that the judicial system has functioned. It’s no proof that the system has functioned properly.
Both sides can cite individual cases of horrendous murders and horrendous miscarriages of justice. The only way I could see the pro-execution side having a point is if the anti-execution crowd didn’t have a single example of long-delayed and long-deserved exoneration to point to. The death penalty has been shown to be faulty in both Illinois and Maryland, and there is no indication to believe that this is a recent phenomenon, nor that it is limited to those two states alone.
Personally, I too recoil at the details of some of the murders mentioned in this thread and I cannot fathorm what I would do if my stepdaughter were taken from me in such a manner. But executing her murderer (that is, assuming the police actually caught the right person) wouldn’t bring her back, nor would it lessen the pain of our loss in the long term. Knowing the person who did it really is behind bars and stands no chance of being let out onto the streets to do such a thing again is justice enough for me. Maybe it’s not enough for some victims’ families. But executing an innocent person produces the same loss for their families as the loss of a murder victim’s family - with the additional burden of knowing it’s going to happen. I cannot see how that might be acceptable to anyone.
Anybody see Oz last night? Maybe I would prefer the death penalty instead of a life in prison getting “spooned”.
Note there is a considerable difference between new evidence that now introduces “reasonable doubt” and saying “the guys are innocent”. They might have very well have commited the crime- just that the the evidence no longer “proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. Not very many death row inmates are actually release becuse they are “proven innocent”. It is more often that they cannot be “proven guilty”. Some dudes who it is well known (by the Police & Prosecutors) to be 100% guilty are released on “technicalities”.
Of course- still- “innocent until proven guilty” and we do need those “technicalities” to avoid serious violations of Constitional rights. But still- saying that “so many of death row were proven innocent” makes the case much stronger than it really is.
It is true that usually investigations stop after the execution. But in some cases the press & the family go on digging. I still haven’t seen one where they proved a recent execution to be of an “innocent man”.
Then note that the arguement that some innocents are indeed found guilty is true. However- why does that arguement only work againsts the Death Penalty? We know the Prison system is just about as bad- so can’t you argue that since SOME innocents are certainly going to be imprisoned for life- that means we have to dump Life imprisoment? Or even prison itself?
The argument doesn’t work against just the death penalty; it applies to the entire prison system. The greatest difference, however, is that someone serving life in prison without parole has MUCH more time to appeal and have their case investigated than someone who only has X amount of years before they execute him. In regards to people awaiting execution, there is a much greater urgency in needing to determine whether they are guilty or not because after they are executed, the point becomes moot.
–greenphan