Gov. George Ryan's final disgrace
I hope it's his last disgrace. Gov. George Ryan is the crook that invented "License for Bribes" which put unsafe drivers on roads all across America. One of these drivers helped to <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0210240214oct24,0,800009.column"; target="_blank">burn six children alive</a>. I might say the blood was on Ryan's hands if there was any after the fire.
So you'd think that would be enough for one man ... no.
George Ryan's latest disgrace it to pardon everyone on Illinois death row. Why? Good heart and conscience? No! With Ryan leaving office and the Feds licking their chops to get at him over "License for Bribes" Ryan is doing this as a last ditch effort to reform himself. Purely self serving move that thwarts the "will of the people" (remember when that was important).
Even the incoming Democratic Governor Blagojevich is opposed to this move.
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002904"; target="_blank">OpinionJournal</a>
[quote] BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, January 13, 2003 2:48 p.m. EST
<a href="http://www.kernel.uky.edu/1995/fall/1122/n6.html"; target="_blank">An Atrocity in Illinois</a>
Back in 1995, Jacqueline Williams, an Illinois mother of three, decided she wanted another baby. So she, boyfriend Fedell Caffey and cousin Levern Ward went to visit Ward's ex-girlfriend Debra Evans, who was nearly nine months pregnant. A contemporaneous Associated Press dispatch describes what happened:
Caffey fatally shot and stabbed the pregnant woman, then he and Ward killed her 10-year-old daughter, Samantha. . . .
Caffey then cut open Evans' body with scissors, and Williams extracted and resuscitated the baby, authorities said. Relatives said Williams has some training in nursing. . . .
The three abducted the newborn and Evans' 8-year-old son, Joshua, police said. Hours later, they allegedly slashed the older boy's throat and dumped his body in an alley. The Chicago Tribune quoted unidentified authorities as saying the group also tried to kill Joshua by poisoning him with iodine and strangling him.
You may remember this story, because, as <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/Newsbriefs/9511/11-22/"; target="_blank">CNN</a> noted at the time (sixth item), Newt Gingrich had the poor taste to cite it as an argument against the welfare state. "Illinois Democrats said Gingrich's remarks were an illustration of his 'lack of a moral compass,' " CNN reported. Said one relative of the victim (quoted in a recent <a href="http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/19554214.html"; target="_blank">Des Moines Register</a> column): "We would appreciate it if Mr. Gingrich would remove our family tragedy from his political rhetoric."
Now another Republican politician is exploiting the Evans family's suffering for political purposes. The three murderers were convicted, and Caffey and Williams were sentenced to death. On Saturday Illinois's Gov. George Ryan commuted their sentences, along with those of Illinois's other 165 prisoners on death row--a dramatic final act for a governor who, as a <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0301120417jan12,1,825262.story"; target="_blank">Chicago Tribune</a> editorial notes, leaves office today "in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation of his campaign and his administration."
It's an act of stunning moral vanity. Ryan claims he's concerned that innocent people may have been on death row, and the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46067-2003Jan12.html"; target="_blank">Associated Press</a> quotes him as saying that capital punishment is "arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral." But what's more arbitrary and capricious than sparing every convict on death row, even those about whose guilt there is no doubt? Ryan's successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, calls Ryan's act "a big mistake." He tells <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43011-2003Jan11.html"; target="_blank">Reuters</a>: "A blanket anything is usually wrong. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. We're talking about people who committed murder."
Even if there were innocents on death row, Ryan has done them no favor. Except for four inmates who got <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41426-2003Jan11.html"; target="_blank">full pardons</a> (Ryan said police had beaten and tortured them into making false confessions), all the erstwhile death-row denizens merely had their sentences reduced to life in prison. This means, as a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030113/4773191s.htm"; target="_blank">USA Today</a> editorial notes, that they "will lose access to the mandatory legal review of their sentences and to the legal experts who provide them extraordinary appellate help." USA Today seems to approve of this, but if there really are innocent people behind bars, why would anyone want to deny them "extraordinary appellate help"?
Ryan's decision harms the innocent, helps the guilty and is a slap in the face of the victims of violent crime and the jurors who made the difficult decision to sentence defendants to death. But as Sam Evans, Debra Evans's widower, tells <a href="http://prodeathpenalty.com/"; target="_blank">ProDeathPenalty.com</a>, "He is not very concerned with individuals, just with issues."<hr></blockquote>
We can only hope this is the last disgrace Ryan trusts on us.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
So you'd think that would be enough for one man ... no.
George Ryan's latest disgrace it to pardon everyone on Illinois death row. Why? Good heart and conscience? No! With Ryan leaving office and the Feds licking their chops to get at him over "License for Bribes" Ryan is doing this as a last ditch effort to reform himself. Purely self serving move that thwarts the "will of the people" (remember when that was important).
Even the incoming Democratic Governor Blagojevich is opposed to this move.
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002904"; target="_blank">OpinionJournal</a>
[quote] BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, January 13, 2003 2:48 p.m. EST
<a href="http://www.kernel.uky.edu/1995/fall/1122/n6.html"; target="_blank">An Atrocity in Illinois</a>
Back in 1995, Jacqueline Williams, an Illinois mother of three, decided she wanted another baby. So she, boyfriend Fedell Caffey and cousin Levern Ward went to visit Ward's ex-girlfriend Debra Evans, who was nearly nine months pregnant. A contemporaneous Associated Press dispatch describes what happened:
Caffey fatally shot and stabbed the pregnant woman, then he and Ward killed her 10-year-old daughter, Samantha. . . .
Caffey then cut open Evans' body with scissors, and Williams extracted and resuscitated the baby, authorities said. Relatives said Williams has some training in nursing. . . .
The three abducted the newborn and Evans' 8-year-old son, Joshua, police said. Hours later, they allegedly slashed the older boy's throat and dumped his body in an alley. The Chicago Tribune quoted unidentified authorities as saying the group also tried to kill Joshua by poisoning him with iodine and strangling him.
You may remember this story, because, as <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/Newsbriefs/9511/11-22/"; target="_blank">CNN</a> noted at the time (sixth item), Newt Gingrich had the poor taste to cite it as an argument against the welfare state. "Illinois Democrats said Gingrich's remarks were an illustration of his 'lack of a moral compass,' " CNN reported. Said one relative of the victim (quoted in a recent <a href="http://desmoinesregister.com/opinion/stories/c5917686/19554214.html"; target="_blank">Des Moines Register</a> column): "We would appreciate it if Mr. Gingrich would remove our family tragedy from his political rhetoric."
Now another Republican politician is exploiting the Evans family's suffering for political purposes. The three murderers were convicted, and Caffey and Williams were sentenced to death. On Saturday Illinois's Gov. George Ryan commuted their sentences, along with those of Illinois's other 165 prisoners on death row--a dramatic final act for a governor who, as a <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0301120417jan12,1,825262.story"; target="_blank">Chicago Tribune</a> editorial notes, leaves office today "in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation of his campaign and his administration."
It's an act of stunning moral vanity. Ryan claims he's concerned that innocent people may have been on death row, and the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46067-2003Jan12.html"; target="_blank">Associated Press</a> quotes him as saying that capital punishment is "arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral." But what's more arbitrary and capricious than sparing every convict on death row, even those about whose guilt there is no doubt? Ryan's successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, calls Ryan's act "a big mistake." He tells <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43011-2003Jan11.html"; target="_blank">Reuters</a>: "A blanket anything is usually wrong. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. We're talking about people who committed murder."
Even if there were innocents on death row, Ryan has done them no favor. Except for four inmates who got <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41426-2003Jan11.html"; target="_blank">full pardons</a> (Ryan said police had beaten and tortured them into making false confessions), all the erstwhile death-row denizens merely had their sentences reduced to life in prison. This means, as a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030113/4773191s.htm"; target="_blank">USA Today</a> editorial notes, that they "will lose access to the mandatory legal review of their sentences and to the legal experts who provide them extraordinary appellate help." USA Today seems to approve of this, but if there really are innocent people behind bars, why would anyone want to deny them "extraordinary appellate help"?
Ryan's decision harms the innocent, helps the guilty and is a slap in the face of the victims of violent crime and the jurors who made the difficult decision to sentence defendants to death. But as Sam Evans, Debra Evans's widower, tells <a href="http://prodeathpenalty.com/"; target="_blank">ProDeathPenalty.com</a>, "He is not very concerned with individuals, just with issues."<hr></blockquote>
We can only hope this is the last disgrace Ryan trusts on us.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
Comments
Concerning the second point, the murder is horrible and the man totally crazy. The important thing is that he will never be free. I expect that in US, it's not technically possible to free such people.
How you would feel if an innocent relative of yours was executed?
The death penalty doesn't bring back the victim. The death penalty isn't justice...it's more knee-jerk revenge. The death penalty is no better than the most premeditated cold-blooded murder, and just because it's sanctioned by the state doesn't give it any more ethical "legitimacy" than what the likes of Dahmer and Bundy did.
Life in jail...with "life" meaning until a murderer dies in jail, is a perfectly adequate "death sentence". We don't have to resort to the methods of killers. To quote that hackneyed bumper sticker: why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
I've heard this too, but I don't see how it can be true.
You build a gas chamber, shooting range, lethal injection chamber or whatever. You acquire the chemicals, bullets, etc. You use them. You maintain the facility. How can this be more expensive than feeding, cleaning after, housing an inmate for the rest of his life? Death row inmates are not used for prison labor, so they do not give back anything in any way.
Carrying out death sentences doesn't seem very expensive at all, especially in the couple of states that still use low tech facilities like shooting ranges. They have several shooters. One gun is loaded with a blank so the shooters won't know for sure whether they shot the guy or not.
There's nothing expensive or complicated about this. Just imagine how much it costs to feed an inmate for the rest of his life? Let's just say it costs a $5 a day for 2 meals, clothes, supplies, the cell, surveillance, etc. After 15 years, that's already $27,000+
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
This is not true. A few states still have the legal option to put a death row inmate to death by electrocution or hanging. This has never been called "cruel and unusual" by the federal government, and has in fact been held up by the Supreme Court as being just.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is true. The federal government doesn´t deside what I find to be excessive cruel punishment. Its not a legal question for me but a moral one.
<strong>No. The importent thing about #2 is that they are not subject to a excessive cruel punishment (stoning, hanging, shooting, electrofying, lethal injection, decaptiation aso).</strong><hr></blockquote>
well i should have added, that the capital punishment did not bring anything more. As SJO told :
[quote] Life in jail...with "life" meaning until a murderer dies in jail, is a perfectly adequate "death sentence". We don't have to resort to the methods of killers. <hr></blockquote>
However if would be a terrible mistake to release such a man in the nature even after 30 years of jail : he would commit an another murder. In france, even life sentances are never really practiced, people finish to be liberated. I think in case of these kind of insane or serial killer, this is really bad.
I am against the death penalty, but i am against to free such kind of murderer, even after 30 years of jail. Their liberty do not worth, the life of innocent people.
But i don't think it's the case in US, i don't think that they liberate people with life penalty sentances. ( i could be wrong, can some US people reply ? )
<strong>
But i don't think it's the case in US, i don't think that they liberate people with life penalty sentances. ( i could be wrong, can some US people reply ? )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here in the States we do life "Life without the possiblity for parole."
I think Ryan did a good thing. He's not letting the people out of prison but keeping them off of death row.
Even in the "obvious" case you describe Scott, Illinois has proven that their/our court system can't handle the responsibility. For every black man on death row, there was a white man that committed the same crime but wasn't given capitol punishment.
One of the men previously on death row was convicted based off of his written confession. Fine. Except that the police spilled coffee on the paper and threw it out. There was no other record of his supposed confession, but one spilled coffee later and the man is put to death?
It's cases like these that make the death penalty an almost impossiblity. The system is broken. It's amazing to me that you'll let the severity of a crime such as the one described in your post effect your rationale.
For the man who's life was on the line because of a cup of spilled coffee, the Associated Press would have written an equally disturbing story about his crime. Only it's written after the court has made a decision, right or wrong. Jacqueline Williams could have been in Kansas at the time of the murder, but if the police accidently lose the proof, the AP treats her just the same.
I've heard this too, but I don't see how it can be true.
<hr></blockquote>
The legal fees incurred in defending the Death Penalty far outstrip the cost of housing inmates for life, though I don't have a source.
But it's beside the point. I don't think the death penalty should be argued from such a utilitarian standpoint: it's a philosophical and moral question.
<strong>
The legal fees incurred in defending the Death Penalty far outstrip the cost of housing inmates for life, though I don't have a source.
But it's beside the point. I don't think the death penalty should be argued from such a utilitarian standpoint: it's a philosophical and moral question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you also need to account for separate facilities to house, maintain, feed, and staff. they don't stick these guys in the general population. it cost significantly more money in relation to the amount of prisoners to secure as compared to the general prison population.
as far as your last point, sure it's a philosophical and moral question, but it's also a practical one as well. me, i don't have a moral problem with someone dying for a horrible crime that they've committed. where i guess i have a problem is on a philosophical and practical level. you can't take that shit back. oops, i guess the dna evidence would have proved him innocent, bummer. add to that the cost, as mentioned and that i don't believe that the death penalty is any kind of deterrence against violent crime. hell, i'm not even touching on the social and racial aspects, which gov. ryan said he had a problem with.
<strong>
I've heard this too, but I don't see how it can be true.
You build a gas chamber, shooting range, lethal injection chamber or whatever. You acquire the chemicals, bullets, etc. You use them. You maintain the facility. How can this be more expensive than feeding, cleaning after, housing an inmate for the rest of his life? Death row inmates are not used for prison labor, so they do not give back anything in any way.
Carrying out death sentences doesn't seem very expensive at all, especially in the couple of states that still use low tech facilities like shooting ranges. They have several shooters. One gun is loaded with a blank so the shooters won't know for sure whether they shot the guy or not.
There's nothing expensive or complicated about this. Just imagine how much it costs to feed an inmate for the rest of his life? Let's just say it costs a $5 a day for 2 meals, clothes, supplies, the cell, surveillance, etc. After 15 years, that's already $27,000+
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you factor in the cost of the lengthy appeals process, the cost of the death penalty far exceeds the cost of life imprisonment.
[quote]Capital punishment is a far more expensive system than one whose maximum penalty is life in prison.
A New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life imprisonment.
In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.
Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina all have concluded that capital punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty system would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.
Under a death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing); they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).
The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:
Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child
Reducing the resources states put into crime prevention, education and rehabilitation, investigative resources, and drug treatment programs.
"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." --Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999 <hr></blockquote>
from <a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html"; target="_blank">Here</a>
It would be a good idea in the future not to simplify things that you don't know about and use that model to form an opinion. You will be mistaken every time.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Even if the argument is on my (the anti-state-can-kill-its-citizents) side lets leave that side alone and focus on the political/moral aspect side of it.
Here is some food for thoughts: We have life in prison but that means no more than 10-15 YIP. I can only think of one person, who were convicted for murder (in US AAMOF and on his mother) who was set free and killed again (his wife). Anyone of you yankees* would like to live in such a society?
*for those humoursly challenged:
Somehow that disturbed me.
But I think it's legitimate to bring up the cost issue, if only to rebut the argument that some people make when they say "I support the death penalty because I don't think the state should pay to house and feed this scum for the rest of his life."
Anyway, I don't get this criticism of Ryan. He had already made a big step when he put a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois. And that was close to the beginning of his term. This just basically makes it permanent for those currently on death row.
And the majority of people in the US are in favor of the death penalty, so I don't see how this is self-serving.
But none of that matters when you have to save your own hide.
<strong>
The legal fees incurred in defending the Death Penalty far outstrip the cost of housing inmates for life, though I don't have a source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you don't. You don't think there are just as many legal fees to be paid for putting someone in a cell and throwing away the key?
[quote]But it's beside the point. I don't think the death penalty should be argued from such a utilitarian standpoint: it's a philosophical and moral question.<hr></blockquote>
I never said I was for capital punishment -- In fact, I'm against it. I'm merely pointing out that the cost factor is most likely baseless propaganda.
<strong>
I never said I was for capital punishment -- In fact, I'm against it. I'm merely pointing out that the cost factor is most likely baseless propaganda.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well giant put a link up for you. <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs2.html"; target="_blank">Here's another one.</a> It's not baseless propaganda. Death penalty cases have automatic appeals and a wider variety of potential bases for appeal than other cases, for obvious reasons.
But many of the death penalty advocates say we should cut back on all those appeals. I suppose it would be cheaper if we gave 'em a trial and then just executed them immediately after the trial.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>It's self-serving because he's only doing it to reform himself before the Feds go full tilt at him. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You make this claim, but it's just not true. Why did he put a moratorium on the death penalty? To save his own hide? No, because he knows that at least in Illinois, the death penalty was poorly implemented.
Since we all know and admit that here in Illinois the use and prosecution with the death penalty is poorly implemented, we also all know that commuting the sentences of those on death row was the right and just thing to do regardless of the case.