Yes, but oddly- the effect seems to be the opposite. Get stuck on Death Row, and there are many groups fighting to get you out & show you innocent. Get thrown in for “LWP”, and it seems you rot unless you have resources or luck out. It actually seems that since the execution is often delayed- if you really are inncocent, it woul dbe best to be sentanced to death. Odd, eh?
What is more injust: killing an innocent or putting the guilty into prison for life with no chance of parole? Seems pretty simple to me.
I don’t know of many groups that are fighting to get specific prisoners off Death Row, rather they’re fighting to abolish the death penalty overall. Besides, I hardly think knowing that some group out there is devoting what meager time and resources it can afford to your cause - against a much more highly organized and legally more experienced state machine, no less - is going to outweigh the emotionally and psychologically traumatic effects of knowing you stand a very good chance of being killed for something you didn’t do.
Additionally, there are a mountain of other factors besides the physical evidence in a trial that can swing the decision. The quality of the defense is one - one trial cited earlier in this thread noted the defense lawyer actually slept through most of the trial. Let’s not forget that evidence can be tampered with or “lost”, like the gas can in the Illinois arson case that’s also been discussed here. In short, we have solid examples of people that should not have been on trial in the first place.
Ultimately, a successful challenge to the death penalty is a stepping stone towards a challenge to the entire functioning of the prison system itself. Resting on one’s laurels once the abolition of the death penalty is again achieved is extremely short-sighted, and I personally don’t know any anti-DP activist who isn’t in favor of a complete overhaul of the prison system.
Can you prove that in such cases, those seeking to exonerate the executed were able to successfully exhaust all avenues of investigation? Can you prove that the continued investigations were in no way blocked or stonewalled or otherwise hampered by people involved whose interests lay in making sure the truth did not come to light? I’m not talking conspiracies here, I’m talking about people’s tendency to cover their tracks, regardless of motive. For example, I don’t think Cmdr. Burge of the Chicago PD would willingly participate in any investigations into his use of torture to obtain confessions.
I’d rather grant life to 1000 murderers than take the life of one innocent.
But here is the problem. “Anti-DP activists” are wanting to ABOLISH the Death Penalty- and done of their big arguements is that the system is flawed. But then they want to “overhaul” the prison system. Why can’t the Death Penalty be “overhauled”? Why must it be completely abolished?
And- of course not. But still it seems odd that we have no good solid cases. You’d think there’d be ONE… assuming so many innocents are being executed. Maybe, as a previous poster pointed out- we don’t have any specifically because the system- with all the checks, balances, appeals and outside groups working to prove innocence- works?
I don’t know. I must admit, if I was Gov- few dudes would be executed. I am really not happy with some of the things I have seen come out. But saying that no one- no matter how guilty, no matter how heinous the crime- can be executed seems a bit much. So that is what gets me about Gov. Ryan. Not that he commuted most of the sentences- he commuted them all, without regard to even those who clearly were completely guilty. If he had commuted 90% of them- I would commend him. But 10% shows to be a lack of judgement & not being an “informed decision”. Surely- there had to be at least ONE case where there was no doubt.
SIGH. “ONE of their big arguements”- not “dONE…”. “But 100% shows to be a lack of judgement…”- not “But 10% shows…”.
Simply put, because we can’t raise the dead. A wrongfully imprisoned person can be released and pardoned. What can we do for the innocent person whose life was mistakenly taken in the name of “justice”?
If the system “worked”, the four Death Row prisoners who were pardoned last week would never have gone to trial in the first place. They were tortured into confessing to crimes they did not commit. A properly functional judicial system would have exposed that from the start. You cannot say the system works because four innocent men were exonerated after almost twenty years each in the prison system. Anthony Porter came within hours of execution. A properly functioning system shouldn’t have brought him anywhere near that close to death. Can you really believe a system so flawed is incapable of making an irrevocable mistake?
And there were at least FOUR cases where there was no doubt about innocence. Any system of punitive measures that allows for the possibility of such irrevocable mistakes should be unconditionally scrapped.
Scrap that “four” and replace it with “seventeen”. Let’s not forget those 13 exonerations that were the impetus for Gov. Ryan’s moratorium in the first place.
On second thought, scrap that “seventeen”. The number of Death Row exonerations nationwide since the re-establishmnet of the death penalty stands at between 100 and 105. That’s roughly 3% of the current total Death Row population. Considering that the judicial system was flawed enough to get them there in the first place, I have no confidence that no innocent persons still remain on Death Row USA.
Umm- well no. There were four cases were the confession was obtained by duress (other than what the Gov said, i didn’t see anything which would lead me to agree it was 'torture")- which is certainly wrong. But- even a confession obtained by torture could be real- just not admissable. In one of these cases, the dude isn’t getting out as he is also in on another murder conviction. Of course, this doesn’t prove he killed the guy he was on Daeth row for, but it does stop any concept of him being “innocent”.
That’s why I think it is important to place a diffeence between 'wrongfully convicted" and “innocent”.
there is no such thing as innocent in the law. There’s only not guilty. Different thing. Innocent is for religion, and god.
And what the Chicago police did to those four people was definitely torture.
If you want examples, I know of some first hand.
Some more thoughts:
I think we can all agree, despite the overblown rhetoric and accusations of certain posters, that the execution of an innocent person is unacceptable. That being said, nobody has explained to me why Ryan ignored a case-by-case review which, incidentally, was what he promised to do, to determine whose sentence to commute and whose sentence should be served. Rather than determining that perhaps this inmate may be innocent and commuting his sentence, but Edward Spreitzer was most certainly guilty and deserving of the death penalty. I know it’s spitting into the wind to expect a politician to keep his word, but I honestly thought he would, as justice demands, consider each case. The “not enough time” argument is clearly a smoke screen, he’s had more than enough time, more than enough investigations, and more than enough recommendations to make his determinations.
Spavined Gelding, although your links didn’t work for me, it was no matter, because I have reviewed the commissions report on capital punishment. Funny, nowhere in the report that I could find did they recommend commuting the sentence of everyone on death row. Maybe, in the vastness of your wisdom, you could point it out to me. Thanks in advance. As far as their recommendations, many of them I fully support, like 28, which would limit the eligibility factors. However, just because there are ways to reform the system, doesn’t mean the governor should take the extreme actions he did. As an aside, I’m sure you’d also find this part interesting, I know I did:
You can use that quote in your future arguments if you like. That idea has been advanced over and over in this thread, that the mere possiblility that an innocent person could be executed is reason enough to do away with the death penalty. That is a fine argument against the death penalty, but it has next to nothing to do with the blanket commutation. Justice should be determined on a case by case basis, not as “well the whole thing sucks so pitch it.”
Diogenes, the family of the victim should have some say in the determination of sentences. Not merely because they are the ones most hurt, but because they are the victim’s proxy, since the victim no longer has a say in the matter. That’s why, if, god forbid, my wife is ever a victim, I would never ask for the death penalty because I know that would be her wish. And quit with the immature color, font stuff. Here, I’ll answer the question you are so hard up on, the cops who tortured people into confessing should be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Happy? Now kindly stop with the hysterics.
A report by the Human Rights Watch group good enough for you? Try running a Google search on “Jon Burge” if you’d like more source material.
Let me provide you with definitions 1a and 2a of “innocent” from the Oxford English Dictionary:
Which do you think is the more germane to the discussion, and which merely serves to obfuscate and distract from the point?
Here’s a quote gleamed fromThe Chicago Sun-Times that hopefully answers your question:
So, he DID look at each individual case, he just wasn’t willing to make the call of who deserved to live and who deserved to die, a decision which so many on this message board are willing to make.
–greenphan
Saen, might I point out that you are engaged in a rank self-contradiction? Yes, the death penalty is the law in the State of Illinois. However, the power of the governor of the State of Illinois to pardon or commute anybody and everybody is also the law.
To paraphrase somebody in this thread 
“It doesn’t matter if you are for or against it. The fact is it is law. And that makes a mockery of that law past, present and future.”
You may have arguments, indeed good ones, that Gov. Ryan’s decision was a poor one, and indeed go ahead and make them. But to argue that Gov. Ryan made a “mockery” of the law by applying a separate and equally valid law (hell, maybe even more valid, as pardon and commutation are state constitutional powers) simply means that you have made a personal determination as to what is the “better” law, and you want your “better” law to be given more weight than the law you dislike.
That’s a political argument; it is not an argument based upon respect for law.
Sua
With respect to the argument that some are guilty, so why the blanket commutation, you have to bear in mind that guilt and sentence are two separate things. I’m not familiar with the exact approach taken in Illinois, but normally the death sentencing phase is a separate part of the trial, post-conviction. Special factors must be shown to justify a death sentence.
The significance of this point is that the evidence strongly suggests that the Illinois system has wrongfully convicted people. What about those that have been properly found guilty of the crime but there were flaws in the sentencing process? Can we assume that a system that has made mistakes about the basic question of guilt has nonetheless operated perfectly at the sentencing stage? Once the system is shown to have flaws at one stage, how can we be sure it worked at the next stage? I think that’s what’s Gov. Ryan means in the quote that greenphan gave: once the doubts about the system are established, then what are we to do but conclude that it’s not possible to be sure?
With respect to the argument that a blanket commutation is a misuse of the clemency power, frustrates the legislative will, that he should have done it case-by-case, etc., the quote that greenphan gives is a partial reply: Governor Ryan says he did do it case-by-case. That was also my understanding from watching his speech on Saturday on CNN: he commented that he and his staff had been working for months reviewing cases.
As well, the basic duty of the Governor of Illinois is to “be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws.” Illinois Constitution, Article V, s. 8. Once Governor Ryan concluded:
-
that the capital punishment laws were not working;
-
that the capital punishment laws could not be made to work without legislative reforms (which is how I understand his reliance on the quote from Blackmun J.); and
-
that there was a potential for the laws to kill innocent persons, and persons who did not deserve the death penalty even if guilty of the crime,
then I think it fits well within the scope of his responsibility. The Governor has a duty to enforce the laws, but the Legislature has a corresponding duty to give the Governor functioning laws.
Finally, with respect to the suggestion that he’s betrayed his party and supporters, don’t we normally say we want politicians to do the right thing and act out of principle, regardless of party ties?
Governor Ryan has been studying this issue, personally and through the Commission, for going on three years now. What he’s found has changed his mind, and convinced him that the Illinois death penalty laws are fundamentally flawed, so he took action, even though it was against his original position. Isn’t that what we want politicians to do in a democracy? don’t we want them to look into matters in detail, and to exercise their best judgment on our behalf, regardless of partisan ties? And if he was convinced that the death penalty laws were fundamentally flawed and unworkable, doesn’t his duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws require him to take action immediately, rather than just slough it off onto his successor?
—The family believes that justice equals execution.—
Ok, but that doesn’t make it justice. I’ve always had a hard time understanding what punishment has to do with justice. Justice is about preventing or righting wrongs: punishment is about pragmatic concerns like deterence and keeping criminals out of circulation. In this case, the wrong cannot be righted, and its too late to prevent.
—Each conviction should have been examined based on their own merits, as promised when Ryan set up his clemency boards.—
This would be the case if the only issue were innocence/vs. guilty. But another large part of the case is simply that the punishment on the whole was being used sporadically, capriciously, and arbitrarily. You can’t “fix” that after the fact by pardoning some (or even re-sentancing others to die): it’s a matter of a system wide imbalence.
—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.—
That’s kind of an odd statement, given that the system is harder and more effective than at almost any other time this century. We have much much harsher penalties, and we have far less crime (a larger proportion are crimes of passion, which detterence doesn’t affect as much).
blanx RE: Madison Hobley
Are you fuckin’ kidding me? Those are the facts in the case? Could you provide a cite? Not that I doubt you, but Jesus H. Christ Almighty!
I think a lot of the emotion related to Ryan’s actions – and I include both positive and negative emotion – stems from the idea that Ryan has struck a blow against the death penalty. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. I can imagine just as much back-lash as momentum. What I do think is guaranteed is that future death penalty cases in Illinois will receive a deeper level of scrutiny. This can only be a good thing.
Ryan’s actions do not question the validity of the death-penalty as much as they question the validity of the implementation in Illinois. The implementation has been found to be flawed and the only judicious reaction is to wipe the slate and start over.
And while I can appreciate the feelings of death-penalty supporters and victim’s families when they feel justice has been undone and many guilty have been given a lesser penalty – and this is most certainly the case with the majority. I can also appreciate the feelings of the innocent and their families when they realize that their lives have been justly spared – and this is most certainly the case with some.
Once again, and slowly this time: I absolutely never even remotely claimed that. Those are words that YOU have REPEATEDLY tried to put into my mouth. My posts are on this site, so quote me. Find where I said that or anything else like that.
**
Hmm. Did you just accuse me of cheap demagoguery? You think I am making a cheap emotional appeal?:rolleyes:
Although I personally find your style of debate to be unappealing, I can’t deny that you’ve got some big brass ones to insinuate that I or anyone else here has callous disregard for innocent lives, in big giant red letters no less.
You say that the family has not been betrayed? Ryan promised them that he would judge the cases on their individual merits, then broke that promise. How is breaking a promise not a betrayal?
**
Believe it or not, I understand perfectly that it’s wrong to kill someone if they are not actually guilty. If you’ll check back in my first post, the majority of the petitioners did not even contest their guilt. I know that Rissley never tried to claim he didn’t abduct and murder Kayla. In fact, he provided a detailed confession and provided the police with the location of the as yet undiscovered body. His motive for killing her was that heard a noise outside the barn and thought she would make enough noise to attract attention and get him caught. At trial he claimed that “She wanted it,” and boasted of molesting other children too. Come on! There isn’t even unreasonable doubt in his case.
**
Well, that’s easy to say on this side of the fence, but you might feel differently when the time came. I do know that some 150 plus inmates apparently felt that clemency was a better deal than execution, so they at least regard it as the lesser of the two punishments.
You wouldn’t be rushing to judgement at all here would you? I am wholly unfamiliar with their cases beyond the headline version, so I won’t comment as to their innocence or guilt. Assuming they are guilty, how does this bear in any of the other cases? We’ve all agreed that there are cases where justice has not been trampled upon. The point of contention in this thread is, as far as I can see anyway, whether or not justice is served by dealing with all cases lumped together or each alone. Either way, I don’t want the death penalty applied in any future cases, and I would make that the law of the land tomorrow if I were so empowered. Removing death as an option for future verdicts is not, however, the same thing as commuting past sentences.
So far, this is what I’ve gotten out of our exchange on the board:
Your contentions are that:
-
Innocent people should not be killed.
-
The feelings of the victim’s families are irrelevant.
-
Even if they were relevant, they have no grounds to feel betrayed.
-
The death penalty system is flawed.
From these you conclude that:
A. We should abandon the death penalty system, and
B. Ryan’s blanket commutation was justified.
I do not now nor have I yet differed with you on points 1 or 4, nor do I differ with conclusion A.
Point 2 I disagree with.
The victims’ families do most certainly matter. The state certainly thinks so, since it allows them to have their say during sentencing, just as the accused is allowed the opportunity to demonstrate remorse or lack thereof. Also, let me reiterate: I have never argued that their feelings should be the determining factor in sentencing, nor have I ever argued against families that do not want the death penalty.
Point 3 I disagree with as well. A broken promise and reduced sentence equates to betrayal in my book and theirs, even if not in yours. But this is ground I’ve already covered, so I’ll move on.
Conclusion B I do not agree with. While I would be perfectly happy to remove death from the option list for all future trials, I would not call reducing the sentences of all past convictions, without regard to the unique circumstances of each, to life imprisonment a fair application of the law or justice.
My contentions are pretty basic ones:
-
Past verdicts should be overturned based solely on the individual merits of each case.
-
Families of the victims have been ill-served by a Governor who promised that he would judge each case on its merits yet delivered the exact opposite.