IL Gov. Ryan pardones four, communtes 156 death sentences

[SlowwHand]

And ignoring the cost of upkeep for the convicts, how much was wasted on trials alone?
How far does this leech ?
Again, you can live in a fantasy and give it a big thumb's up, but the ramifications are horrible.

[Traianvs]

Ryan is a jag-bag... anything he does, he's doing for himself. He doesn't give half a sh1t about innocent people, he doesn't care about the victims families. He's trying to go around the checks and balances of the democratic system in order to set a precedence for what he believes the death penalty should be. He is ultra-pro-life in the sickest sense. He wants to ban abortion even in the case of rape and incest.

In that case (i don't really know Ryan) he is an *******, but he did got those ppl out of death row

"(hell i am even against death penalty, unless the criminals prefer death over life sentence of course)

Oh well, certainly. Whatever their preference is in the situation"

What's so funny about it.. there are people who prefer death over a life sentence (I can name a few people, but of course, we'll never know what they would really do until we get that far, hehe )

Anyway if that's enough for you, well: that smiley was a good argument

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And ignoring the cost of upkeep for the convicts, how much was wasted on trials alone?

So should we have no trials at all, since they cost money? Should convicts be denied appeals because it can get expensive?

How far does this leech ?
Again, you can live in a fantasy and give it a big thumb's up, but the ramifications are horrible.

Pray tell us what is so horrible about not executing people. Time to stop the sweeping generalizations and delve into some specifics. You claim to see a larger picture than others in a quite condescending way, so please let us know what you see.

Otherwise it's hot air.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rah
They haven't wanted to charge a sitting Governor and have been patiently waiting. (I'll lay bets, the charges are made before the end of the week)

I'm not old enough to remember this but you and Ming are. The IL governor from the early 70s was sent to prison (I don't remember his name). We changed the state constitution because of him. Was he a sitting governor or did they wait 'till he was out of office?

[Sava]

I support the death penalty in principle, but it's obvious that the justice system is flawed and needs to be reformed. The DP is unfairly applied to poor offenders. As with anything in America, there is no equality. The rich get to buy commuted sentences and charges while poor (often minorities) get harsher sentences and often times get railroaded.

I would be against abolishing the DP, but a moratorium is necessary to fix our f*cked system.

[chequita guevara]

Sava, Ryan may be a pro-lifer, but he did veto a ban on publically funded abortions on the grounds it wasn't fair that rich women could have abortions while poor women would no longer be able to do so. I can't see a hard-core pro-lifer caring, since it results in a "positive" good in that less babies would be aborted.

If he hadn't tollerated corruption, Ryan would have been one of Illinois' great governors. Heck, if he was really the conservative arse that you think he is, I'd expect Ashcroft to have made Ryan's Federal problems go away.

[Jac de Molay]

Ryan did the right thing. Any society that executes innocent people, no matter how many guilty people are executed besides, cannot call the death penalty a just solution.

I prefer lifetime in solitary confinement for heinous crimes. It would be a much better deterrent than the death penaly.

[Bereta_Eder]

I think that giving pardons to people like they were Turkeys is demining to human dignity.
As is the DP, but this is demining on the state instead,

[rah]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm not old enough to remember this but you and Ming are. The IL governor from the early 70s was sent to prison (I don't remember his name). We changed the state constitution because of him. Was he a sitting governor or did they wait 'till he was out of office?

That might have been Gov. Dan Walker. He lived just a few blocks from us and his son was a friend of ours.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii930845.html

He wasn't charged till after he left office. Much later really.

Or it could have been Governor Ogilvie who served just prior to Walker. He wasn't indicted till after he left office also.

Gee, I seem to see a pattern here.

Walker was a Demo, so both parties have had their fun.

RAH

[chequita guevara]

Ogilvie's the one I was thinking of. I didn't remember Walker at all. It seemed like big gay Jim Thompson was governor my whole life. IL just doesn't seem right without him at the helm.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
big gay Jim Thompson

Do his wife and daughter know about this?

[chequita guevara]

Most likely, yes. His homosexuality is something of an open secret in Illinois. It's not like he wouldn't have been the first gay politician to be married and have children.

[Ramo]

Funny how Communists talk about 'democracy' but applaud anti-democratic actions whenever it benefits them .

As a republican (small 'R') I have no problems with this.

Opposition to authoritarianism is not the same thing as opposition to democracy, and a state-mandated execution is about as authoritarian a concept as I can think of. I consider democratic any action (within reason, of course) opposing the DP.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Opposition to authoritarianism is not the same thing as opposition to democracy, and a state-mandated execution is about as authoritarian a concept as I can think of. I consider democratic any action (within reason, of course) opposing the DP.

That's silly. So is Saddam Hussein unilaterally abolished the death penalty, that would be a unilateral action? BULL****!

Btw, state executions are democratic. The people have voted and said yes, we want this. Nice to see if the people disagree with you they are being authoritarian . I think I'm starting to understand anarchists now .

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So should we have no trials at all, since they cost money? Should convicts be denied appeals because it can get expensive?



Pray tell us what is so horrible about not executing people. Time to stop the sweeping generalizations and delve into some specifics. You claim to see a larger picture than others in a quite condescending way, so please let us know what you see.

Otherwise it's hot air.

First let me say, I recognize that you'll argue with me, no matter what I say, no matter the subject content.
That acknowledged, did I say "No trials"? No. I said it was a waste of time and money, and it was. You can think not, that's your right.

As far as the leeching, do you know what leeching is?
I ask, how far is the problem in the judicial system ?
Did I say I want all people assumed guilty? Again, no.
What I do not want is:
A) Sweeping generalizations having to be made because of corrupt systems
B) A spread of the problem into areas other than those on death row.
Are you saying it's ok that they're merely locked up ?
C) Yes, if they are guilty of murder, I'd prefer them executed
D) Yes, I find his timing suspect, but then, timing is all, isn't it?

I'll stand by my opinion, in all ways, it's a foul situation.

Quit being so ****ing generalized in your statements, and condemnations, Boris, and get off my back.