IL Gov. Ryan pardones four, communtes 156 death sentences

[rah]

There was a study done that stated the killing them is more costly than Life in prison. The rational was for a death row inmate the average number of appeals was higher than for those sentenced to LIP. The cost to the state of those additional appeals was more than the cost of maintaining them in prison for their natural life.

Sorry no link. And it does make some sense.

My only problems with what Ryan did, was his possible motives and that in Illinois a majority of the people support the death penalty. So he was took his one chance to screw the people that elected him in the first place (besides all the last minute political appointments) because he knows he going to take it up the A** in court later.

RAH

[Ramo]

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

Yes, something that's unilateral is indeed unilateral. That's kind of how logic works.

And yes, if Saddam stopped murdering people, that would certainly be a step forward for democracy...

Btw, state executions are democratic. The people have voted and said yes, we want this

Statism is not democracy.

Nice to see if the people disagree with you they are being authoritarian . I think I'm starting to understand anarchists now .

Yes, non-anarchist positions are indeed authoritarian. That's pretty much a definition too.

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, the appeals process is flawed, also.
Thank God for DNA tests.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ooops typo.... I meant 'that would be a democratic action'.

And yes, if Saddam stopped murdering people, that would certainly be a step forward for democracy...

Would that be a democratic action, if he unilaterally abolished the death penalty?

Statism is not democracy.

Policies carried out by will of the people and the representatives of the people is democracy.

Yes, non-anarchist positions are indeed authoritarian. That's pretty much a definition too.

I call Bull**** on that. Democratic election for a federal government is not authoritation but definetly non-anarchist.

Face it, a executive unilaterally abolished something established by a democratic legislature. Gov. Ryan engaged in an non-democratic practice. He went against the people in his unilateral action. Shame that a self proclaimed anarchist would back a unilateral action by an executive over the will of the populace. Perhaps you should turn in that party card .

[Ramo]

The death penalty is extremely authoritarian, as it takes away a person's life. There's absolutely nothing more authoritarian than a killing. Even if Ryan's actions were "authoritarian," (which they weren't ) they don't begin to stack up to even a single death sentence he commuted.

If he did it by decree? No way.

Yes way. The status quo is pretty much his decree in the areas he controls anyways. The people certainly don't have much input. How would his changing the status quo in the benefit of liberty possibly be un-democratic?

Policies carried out by will of the people and the representatives of the people is democracy.

But the point is that that's not necessarily my idea of democracy, hence there are no problems with Ryan's actions IMO.

I call Bull**** on that. Democratic election for a federal government is not authoritation but definetly non-anarchist.

It is more authoritarian than de-centralized governance. It constrains people by strong federal (and state) authority in addition to local authority, and federal laws are by nature less democratic than local laws.

Face it, a executive unilaterally abolished something established by a democratic legislature. Gov. Ryan engaged in an authoritarian practice.

No, he engaged in a unilateral practice. He stopped an authoritarian practice.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
First let me say, I recognize that you'll argue with me, no matter what I say, no matter the subject content.

Hey, I'll only argue with you when I think you're wrong. I think you're being a weeee bit melodramatic here, Ms. Sloww.

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.

So, if you think trials are a waste of money, wouldn't you be in favor of no trials? Why would you be in favor of something you think is a waste of money?

As far as the leeching, do you know what leeching is?

I hear that's what you do while out drinking with friends on weekends. Isn't that it?

I ask, how far is the problem in the judicial system ?
Did I say I want all people assumed guilty? Again, no.

Who are you arguing with? Did I ever accuse you of assuming everyone is guilty?

Clearly the problem extends quite a bit in Illinois, by Rah and Ming's posts. Certainly more than enough to warrant dramatic changes in capital cases in the state.

What I do not want is:
A) Sweeping generalizations having to be made because of corrupt systems

If a system is so corrupt it puts all convictions into doubt, then that is the fault of the corrupt bastards who made it that way. It is entirely reasonable for commutation in this instance, as it is not overturning convictions and gives convicts time to pursue avenues of having their cases reconsidered in light of what is now known about the corruption.

B) A spread of the problem into areas other than those on death row.

What does this mean? I don't follow what "the problem" is you are referring to. If you mean the problem of corruption leading to tainted or downright false convictions, I certainly DO hope the investigation of it spreads to all cases. I'm certain that if innocents are on death row, others languish in jail on lesser sentences.

Are you saying it's ok that they're merely locked up ?

Absolutely. Was I unclear on that?

C) Yes, if they are guilty of murder, I'd prefer them executed

Your opinion, but the whole issue here is that their guilt is in question, considering the massive failures of the system. Now I'm sure most of those 150 were probably guilty, but I still think the commutation is reasonable, under the circumstances in IL. Better to let 100 murderers get life in prison than execute 1 innocent man.

D) Yes, I find his timing suspect, but then, timing is all, isn't it?

Which has to do with what? Had he done it a year ago, would you have b*tched any less about it? Doubtful.

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

There's that melodrama again. "Oh, sirrah! Leave me alone, please!" Sloww, I don't give you near the hard time I give others on this board, so don't go thinking you're so special. Have a mint julip and relax before you get overcome by the vapors!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The death penalty is extremely authoritarian, as it takes away a person's life.

Seeing as the death penalty was passed through the legislature and signed into passage by the Governor, it is impossible for it to be authoritarian. The democratic process in passing a bill does not involve anything remotely like 'absolute obedience to authority'.

In contrast a governor's order compells obedience to authority.

I wonder what extremely strange definiton of the word 'authoritarian' you are using.

How would his changing the status quo in the benefit of liberty possibly be un-democratic?

By what strange idea do you conclude that democracy always entails liberty and vice versa that liberty means more democracy?

That's utter foolishness.

It is more authoritarian than de-centralized governance.

And following a leader in a revolution is even more authoritarian than a federal or decentralized government. What's your point? Do you conclude that any well run revolution is non-anarchist?

Furthermore, executive orders are more authoritarian than laws passed by the legislature.

No, he engaged in a unilateral practice. He stopped an authoritarian practice.

No, he stopped a democratic process, making his actions more authoritarian.

[mactbone]

I'm still trying to understand first of all how the Appeals Court didn't catch these, and second of all how one > many. You guys keeping making statements about how "One innocent man being freed is worth hundreds of guilty people getting their sentence changed." Maybe it's because I don't have any relatives that have ever been accused of something, or maybe it's because I committed a crime and was so remorseful I tried doing 'things very, very depressed people do', either way I just feel that the system must be pretty good. There are many opportunities for the truth to be known and many second chances given to the defendent. The only thing I guess I would like is either tighter leashes on the police and prosecution or more highly trained PDs. The second seems to be unnatainable for various reasons but you never know.

[Lefty Scaevola]

What a cruel bastard. Life imprisonment is much worse than execution. It the punishment that just keeps on punishing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MacTBone
I'm still trying to understand first of all how the Appeals Court didn't catch these, and second of all how one > many.

Just because an Appelate court overturns your conviction doesn't mean you're scott-free. In Rolando Cruz' case, when the court overturned his convictions for errors, he'd be tried again. This went on three times until finally a police officer admitted he didn't report the supposed dream confession of Rolando Cruz for 60 days (bringing the whole confession into question).

Also consider that claiming you were tortured by the police is no guarantee that the court will intervene. After all, anyone can claim it. The story about Chicago Area Two only came out when people were looking for evidence to back up Anton Wilson's claim he had been tortured (as if the photographic evidence wasn't enough ).

The biggest hurdle defendents face is that once you are convicted, it is no longer enough to poke holes in the state's theory of the crime. You must prove that you could not have comitted the crime.

[faded glory]

Il. DP was flawed. There had been a number of cases were the guilt of past executed was questioned. It was a good move, you know it just isnt morally right unless you absolutely can prove the guilt of the convicted person on death row. Politically he had no choice anyway.


You cannot deny my sexiness...

[Ramo]

Seeing as the death penalty was passed through the legislature and signed into passage by the Governor, it is impossible for it to be authoritarian. The democratic process in passing a bill does not involve anything remotely like 'absolute obedience to authority'.

In contrast a governor's order compells obedience to authority.

I wonder what extremely strange definiton of the word 'authoritarian' you are using.

The legislature is exacting the most extreme form of authority (killing) on the prisoners. The governer, OTOH, is loosening this authority. Hence, Ryan's actions are anti-authoritarian, and the legislature's actions are authoritarian.

Just because an action comes from elected representatives of the people, doesn't it magically preclude any actions of theirs from authoritarianism. If this were true, Ryan himself would be off the hook of "authoritarianism" by this standard.

Authoritarianism is a seperate concept from unilateralism.

By what strange idea do you conclude that democracy always entails liberty and vice versa that liberty means more democracy?

That's utter foolishness.

I think democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the state. I'm just pointing out why there is absolutely no contradiction between socialism and democracy that you asserted, since you're assuming that we follow a different idea of democracy than we actually do.

And following a leader in a revolution is even more authoritarian than a federal or decentralized government. What's your point? Do you conclude that any well run revolution is non-anarchist?

Actually, any revolution that "follows a leader" is not well run. Those are the type that have failed in the end. Real revolution comes from the bottom, not the top.

Furthermore, executive orders are more authoritarian than laws passed by the legislature.

Authoritarianism is a criticism of the nature of the laws, not how they are passed.

No, he stopped a democratic process, making his actions more authoritarian.

He's reducing the authority of the state, hence his actions are anti-authoritarian.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
He's reducing the authority of the state, hence his actions are anti-authoritarian."

No he isn't. These acts do nothing to prevent future executions from taking place, he has merely decided to show leniency in this case.

Also democracy and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive. Democracy only concerns the ways laws are passed. Authoritarianism is something used to describe the law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the state.

Look at the poll numbers supporting the Death Penalty in Illinois. Then see that every person on Death Row was convicted by a jury (originally).

Authoritarianism is a criticism of the nature of the laws, not how they are passed.

And Executive orders are, on the whole, more authoritarian than laws passed by the legislature. Exec orders are unquestionable orders of authority, while laws are questioned by the opposition. Unquestionability is one of the primary parts of authoritarianism.

Actually, any revolution that "follows a leader" is not well run.

Lenin, Mao, Mussolini... I can name more well run revolutionary uprisings where a leader led the charge.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The rule of law was demonstrably and repeatedly perverted and flouted by prosecutors and police.

Then fix the system.
You don't cure a desease by attacking the syptoms.
I might also remind you NOT ALL law enforcement and prosecution in the ENTIRE state of Illinois is corrupt, as you and several others so cavalerly suggest.

Appeals courts do not normally consider new evidence, or questions of fact. They exist to resolve questions of law. The appellate courts in Illinois in many cases simply ignored the claims of prisoners who were later exonerated.

Again, FIX THE SYSTEM, not flaunt THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
Making excuses for an unjustifiable act does not sudenly make the correct or moral thing to do.

Once the system was shown to be systematically tainted with more men shown to be not guilty at all (not simply guilty of non-capital murder, but outright not guilty) than were executed, how many death sentences do you carry out that were processed through that tainted system while what needs to be fixed and how is debated for years? How many innocent men do you risk executing, so you can satisfy some people's desire for blood in return for blood?

That is for the CITIZENS of Illinois to determine, and they did.
They voted FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.
How many small minded politicians and pocket liberals will disreguard democracy to suit their own morality?

Meanwhile, with a system so demonstrably defective, how many millions of taxpayer dollars and how many additional years of appeals do you pay for while every inmate challenges his conviction repeatedly, on the same basis as those who were freed?

Why not just empty the prisons and start over?
From your comments, a slack-jawed yokel can do a better job of providing justice in Illinois then the people empowered to do it.

Yeah, better that we fry 17 innocent men and saved the state the embarassment of demonstrating how flawed it's criminal justice system is.

Heaven forbid we kill anyone, like the guy who rapped a 10 year old and then slaughtered her, and freely and happily admitted it.
The parents can always have more babies, f*ck them, right?
You have all the answers, tell it to them why they will never hold their little girl again while the thing that destroyed her gets to live to be a ripe old age.
Go ahead, write another two page answer about it.

If justice was denied here, the responsibility is squarely on those charged with carrying it out, who instead chose to forcibly extract false confessions, lie about how they were obtained, (or simply look the other way), tamper with evidence, suppress evidence favorable to the defense, and otherwise obstruct justice.

One man, who misused his office did more damage then all those others combined.
Fix the system.
It's for the PEOPLE to decide, or we don't have a democracy.
Not for you, or anyone else here, myself or any other poster.