I don't necessarily oppose the death penalty, but if we're going to execute people, we have to be right. Not 90% of the time, not 99.9% of the time...but always. It's easy to be outraged by the cost, but if it saves innocent people from being executed (and it has), then I'm all for it.
GL
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
Was it the governor of Illinois that commuted the death sentences of all death row inmates to life because there were a good number of people awaiting executions for crimes they didn't commit?
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 1448 Location: New York City 584 eGriz Bucks
Downwiththefoe wrote:
It is an excellent book, I will agree with you on that (there's a first)
regardless of who wrote it, and Grisham is a great author, by about anyones standards - except of course a few smug types I have met who are in the law biz (and it's a biz...very little more than that) It's like they feel threatened or somehting by Grisham or the need to belittle him in some way....why is that?
Oh don't get me wrong; I wasn't insulting Grisham. I actually like most of his books. When I said "it's nonfiction, even though it's by Grisham," I wasn't demeaning his work; I was just clarifying -- all of his other books are fiction, and I didn't want people who aren't familiar with the book to think that I was referencing a work of fiction to make my point.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." --Voltaire
I don't necessarily oppose the death penalty, but if we're going to execute people, we have to be right. Not 90% of the time, not 99.9% of the time...but always. It's easy to be outraged by the cost, but if it saves innocent people from being executed (and it has), then I'm all for it.
GL
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
Was it the governor of Illinois that commuted the death sentences of all death row inmates to life because there were a good number of people awaiting executions for crimes they didn't commit?
Here is one writers view of it.
Facing a possible indictment for corruption, the veteran political deal-maker shut down death row in Illinois. Is he trying to save lives -- or his own legacy?
By Patrick Arden
Jan 16, 2003 |
On the eve of commuting the sentences of every prisoner on death row, Illinois Gov. George Ryan sat at a white Formica-topped table in Manny's, a cafeteria-style delicatessen favored by Chicago's political insiders. As he chomped on a corned beef sandwich, his cellphone rang. Nelson Mandela was on the line. Ryan had already received letters from Desmond Tutu and Pope John Paul II. Mandela wanted to join them in praising Ryan for his integrity.
The incongruity of this scene could only be properly enjoyed - or scorned -- by a fellow Illinoisan. After 37 years in politics, Republican Ryan left the governor's office Monday as a wretched and slightly pathetic figure. "Disgraced" is how the Chicago Tribune put it. While much of the world has praised Ryan's courage in taking on the unfairness of the death penalty, locals are wondering whether they're talking about the same Ryan. The state is in debt $5 billion, and Ryan's party has lost control of government for the first time in nearly three decades -- largely in reaction to the scandals that have plagued his one-term administration.
So the local and national Ryan headlines have made for a surreal contrast: The former governor could win the Nobel Peace Prize for his death penalty stand -- he's been nominated already --or he could go to jail for corruption. Or both.
Before leaving office, Ryan padded the state payroll with cronies. Meanwhile, 52 of his former employees have been convicted and another 20 aides have reportedly been subpoenaed in connection with the federal Operation Safe Road investigation. Operation Safe Road was prompted by a bribery scandal in which nine people were killed by truckers who illegally obtained driver's licenses from Ryan's employees when he was Illinois' secretary of state in the 1990s. Some of that bribe money found its way into his campaign fund. The investigation has uncovered a system that pressured managers at driver's license facilities to sell tickets to Ryan's political fundraisers. The biggest producers were rewarded with promotions, and, prosecutors say, the process encouraged the selling of licenses for bribes.
On Tuesday, less than 24 hours after Ryan's official departure from the Governor's Mansion, his former chief of staff and head of his campaign committee, Scott Fawell, faced a variety of charges in federal court, ranging from racketeering to the use of taxpayer dollars for campaign work to accepting a free trip to Costa Rica that included prostitutes. Fawell and Citizens for Ryan are also charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice. Within the last few weeks, newspaper stories have claimed the feds are still secretly taping phone calls made to Ryan.
Public opinion is generally against the former governor, no matter how people feel about the death penalty. A recent poll showed 60 percent of Illinoisans have an unfavorable opinion of him. Some were surprised the poll was so positive: Callers to one talk-radio show in downstate Springfield, the state capital, overwhelmingly agreed that Ryan should have been taken away in handcuffs during the inauguration ceremony of his successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich. Monday's Chicago Sun-Times prominently displayed the grief and fury of families whose loved ones died at the hands of murderers now facing life in prison rather than death sentences.
Page 1 of the tabloid even featured an angry quote by an outraged Joseph Birkett, the DuPage County prosecutor who relentlessly pursued the exonerated death row inmate Rolando Cruz when all evidence pointed to another man. During Cruz's second murder trial, Birkett ignored the confession of another inmate. When DNA evidence pointed the finger directly at that inmate, Birkett still forced Cruz to endure a third capital trial, which ended, finally, in acquittal. Cruz was eventually released from death row in 1995, after proclaiming his innocence for more than a decade.
Despite a flood of similar stories in recent years, most people here continue to attribute Ryan's commutation of the 167 death sentences to a concern over his historical reputation, not a stand on principle. But that doesn't make much sense. If a politician were truly concerned with his legacy, why would he take such an unpopular step? And with federal investigators hot on his trail, why would he do something that was sure to anger law enforcement authorities?
In the movie "Bulworth," Warren Beatty portrays a veteran politician who has a nervous breakdown and hires a contract killer to assassinate him. In the short time he has left to live, he discovers he's finally free to say and do what he truly believes.
After deciding to not seek reelection midway through his first term, Ryan increasingly did whatever he pleased -- legacy be damned. He lashed out at the press. He traveled to Cuba to meet with Fidel Castro. He slammed his party's nominee for governor (after the candidate claimed to lag in the polls simply because his name was also Ryan). He behaved as though he were the only man who could afford to tell the truth -- the man with nothing left to lose. It's one of the most remarkable -- and, yes, courageous -- national political stories in years, maybe decades.
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 1448 Location: New York City 584 eGriz Bucks
Grizbacker1 wrote:
There are a lot of good points being made. I suspect that opinions of some would change dramatically if one of their family members was the victim of a capital crime. I cannot imagine being the family of a victim.
That's true, but on the flipside, I also think a lot of peoples' opinions would change if they had a relative who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
All of this goes to illustrate why it is that we have legislators who make our laws, instead of letting crime victims and wrongly convicted criminals write the rules.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." --Voltaire
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 1448 Location: New York City 584 eGriz Bucks
Hells bells wrote:
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
So in your opinion (which appears to be based on nothing), it would be "very rare" that a person who is indeed innocent would be executed. And you're cool with that, as long as it saves taxpayer dollars?
The fact is, Hells, juries sometimes do convict innocent people of crimes. DNA evidence has proven that. Would you really rather let innocent people be executed than spend the money to let them appeal?
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." --Voltaire
Facing a possible indictment for corruption, the veteran political deal-maker shut down death row in Illinois. Is he trying to save lives -- or his own legacy?
By Patrick Arden
Jan 16, 2003 |
On the eve of commuting the sentences of every prisoner on death row, Illinois Gov. George Ryan sat at a white Formica-topped table in Manny's, a cafeteria-style delicatessen favored by Chicago's political insiders. As he chomped on a corned beef sandwich, his cellphone rang. Nelson Mandela was on the line. Ryan had already received letters from Desmond Tutu and Pope John Paul II. Mandela wanted to join them in praising Ryan for his integrity.
The incongruity of this scene could only be properly enjoyed - or scorned -- by a fellow Illinoisan. After 37 years in politics, Republican Ryan left the governor's office Monday as a wretched and slightly pathetic figure. "Disgraced" is how the Chicago Tribune put it. While much of the world has praised Ryan's courage in taking on the unfairness of the death penalty, locals are wondering whether they're talking about the same Ryan. The state is in debt $5 billion, and Ryan's party has lost control of government for the first time in nearly three decades -- largely in reaction to the scandals that have plagued his one-term administration.
So the local and national Ryan headlines have made for a surreal contrast: The former governor could win the Nobel Peace Prize for his death penalty stand -- he's been nominated already --or he could go to jail for corruption. Or both.
Before leaving office, Ryan padded the state payroll with cronies. Meanwhile, 52 of his former employees have been convicted and another 20 aides have reportedly been subpoenaed in connection with the federal Operation Safe Road investigation. Operation Safe Road was prompted by a bribery scandal in which nine people were killed by truckers who illegally obtained driver's licenses from Ryan's employees when he was Illinois' secretary of state in the 1990s. Some of that bribe money found its way into his campaign fund. The investigation has uncovered a system that pressured managers at driver's license facilities to sell tickets to Ryan's political fundraisers. The biggest producers were rewarded with promotions, and, prosecutors say, the process encouraged the selling of licenses for bribes.
On Tuesday, less than 24 hours after Ryan's official departure from the Governor's Mansion, his former chief of staff and head of his campaign committee, Scott Fawell, faced a variety of charges in federal court, ranging from racketeering to the use of taxpayer dollars for campaign work to accepting a free trip to Costa Rica that included prostitutes. Fawell and Citizens for Ryan are also charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice. Within the last few weeks, newspaper stories have claimed the feds are still secretly taping phone calls made to Ryan.
Public opinion is generally against the former governor, no matter how people feel about the death penalty. A recent poll showed 60 percent of Illinoisans have an unfavorable opinion of him. Some were surprised the poll was so positive: Callers to one talk-radio show in downstate Springfield, the state capital, overwhelmingly agreed that Ryan should have been taken away in handcuffs during the inauguration ceremony of his successor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich. Monday's Chicago Sun-Times prominently displayed the grief and fury of families whose loved ones died at the hands of murderers now facing life in prison rather than death sentences.
Page 1 of the tabloid even featured an angry quote by an outraged Joseph Birkett, the DuPage County prosecutor who relentlessly pursued the exonerated death row inmate Rolando Cruz when all evidence pointed to another man. During Cruz's second murder trial, Birkett ignored the confession of another inmate. When DNA evidence pointed the finger directly at that inmate, Birkett still forced Cruz to endure a third capital trial, which ended, finally, in acquittal. Cruz was eventually released from death row in 1995, after proclaiming his innocence for more than a decade.
Despite a flood of similar stories in recent years, most people here continue to attribute Ryan's commutation of the 167 death sentences to a concern over his historical reputation, not a stand on principle. But that doesn't make much sense. If a politician were truly concerned with his legacy, why would he take such an unpopular step? And with federal investigators hot on his trail, why would he do something that was sure to anger law enforcement authorities?
In the movie "Bulworth," Warren Beatty portrays a veteran politician who has a nervous breakdown and hires a contract killer to assassinate him. In the short time he has left to live, he discovers he's finally free to say and do what he truly believes.
After deciding to not seek reelection midway through his first term, Ryan increasingly did whatever he pleased -- legacy be damned. He lashed out at the press. He traveled to Cuba to meet with Fidel Castro. He slammed his party's nominee for governor (after the candidate claimed to lag in the polls simply because his name was also Ryan). He behaved as though he were the only man who could afford to tell the truth -- the man with nothing left to lose. It's one of the most remarkable -- and, yes, courageous -- national political stories in years, maybe decades.
That's politics. And yes, Gov. Ryan was indeed corrupt. But that doesn't change the fact that Illinois had a handful of innocent people awaiting execution. We can argue whether or not he should've commuted all of the others' sentences. But the point I was making was that we've almost executed innocent people. If not for the brave and selfless work of some individuals they would have been executed.
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
So in your opinion (which appears to be based on nothing), it would be "very rare" that a person who is indeed innocent would be executed. And you're cool with that, as long as it saves taxpayer dollars?
The fact is, Hells, juries sometimes do convict innocent people of crimes. DNA evidence has proven that. Would you really rather let innocent people be executed than spend the money to let them appeal?
they have had DNA evidance since the mid/early 1990s i belive.
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 Posts: 1448 Location: New York City 584 eGriz Bucks
Hells bells wrote:
they have had DNA evidance since the mid/early 1990s i belive.
Uh huh...and as illustrated in the book I referred to earlier, DNA evidence has proven that quite a few people who were convicted of crimes before DNA evidence existed were actually innocent. Without the appeals process (and all those d@mn lawyers), those people would have been executed.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." --Voltaire
I don't necessarily oppose the death penalty, but if we're going to execute people, we have to be right. Not 90% of the time, not 99.9% of the time...but always. It's easy to be outraged by the cost, but if it saves innocent people from being executed (and it has), then I'm all for it.
GL
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
Of course it is rare, but rare is more than often enough to be very, very concerned about such a possiblity. When you are talking about killing someone, any chance you are wrong is too much.
There are a lot of good points being made. I suspect that opinions of some would change dramatically if one of their family members was the victim of a capital crime. I cannot imagine being the family of a victim.
That's true, but on the flipside, I also think a lot of peoples' opinions would change if they had a relative who was wrongly convicted of a crime.
All of this goes to illustrate why it is that we have legislators who make our laws, instead of letting crime victims and wrongly convicted criminals write the rules.
I agree with your counterpoint as well. I don't think the taxpayer should have to pay extra to house these people. If they can't make it in the general prison population, then tough shit.
I don't necessarily oppose the death penalty, but if we're going to execute people, we have to be right. Not 90% of the time, not 99.9% of the time...but always. It's easy to be outraged by the cost, but if it saves innocent people from being executed (and it has), then I'm all for it.
GL
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
Of course it is rare, but rare is more than often enough to be very, very concerned about such a possiblity. When you are talking about killing someone, any chance you are wrong is too much.
I agree with you
However, I distrust anyone convicted of a crime that says that they are innocent. Usually what happens in Death Penalty cases is that they get dragged out for years (wouldnt this be torture? dragging out your potential execution with appeals? if it were me on death row id only apeal once). I doubt that any new evidance is found between the first and any subsequent appeals, it (the appeal) is only used, IHO, just to drag out the case.
but i am sure there are people who know a little more about this process then the both of us
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
I don't necessarily oppose the death penalty, but if we're going to execute people, we have to be right. Not 90% of the time, not 99.9% of the time...but always. It's easy to be outraged by the cost, but if it saves innocent people from being executed (and it has), then I'm all for it.
GL
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
Of course it is rare, but rare is more than often enough to be very, very concerned about such a possiblity. When you are talking about killing someone, any chance you are wrong is too much.
I agree with you
However, I distrust anyone convicted of a crime that says that they are innocent. Usually what happens in Death Penalty cases is that they get dragged out for years (wouldnt this be torture? dragging out your potential execution with appeals? if it were me on death row id only apeal once). I doubt that any new evidance is found between the first and any subsequent appeals, it (the appeal) is only used, IHO, just to drag out the case.
but i am sure there are people who know a little more about this process then the both of us
Funny ... you seem to have taken a page from Dimsdale ... the Plummer "road agents" were all clearly guilty because at their kangaroo court trials, each said the words "I am innocent," which the vigilantes said was the secret code of the group and thus meant that they were guilty.
All I do know is that people have been found to be wrongly convicted, and if our justice system has any room for error, we probably shouldn't be executing people. We better know for absolute certain (100% and no less) that somebody is guilty before they are executed.
Are most people on death row who say they are innocent guilty? Probably, yeah. But if even one of them is truly innocent, then our system is too flawed to merit the death penalty.
I don't necessarily oppose the death penalty, but if we're going to execute people, we have to be right. Not 90% of the time, not 99.9% of the time...but always. It's easy to be outraged by the cost, but if it saves innocent people from being executed (and it has), then I'm all for it.
GL
it would be very rare that anyone who is found guilty is indeed innocent unless in their own warped viewpoint, or try and manipulate our justice system to get away with their crime.
Of course it is rare, but rare is more than often enough to be very, very concerned about such a possiblity. When you are talking about killing someone, any chance you are wrong is too much.
I agree with you
However, I distrust anyone convicted of a crime that says that they are innocent. Usually what happens in Death Penalty cases is that they get dragged out for years (wouldnt this be torture? dragging out your potential execution with appeals? if it were me on death row id only apeal once). I doubt that any new evidance is found between the first and any subsequent appeals, it (the appeal) is only used, IHO, just to drag out the case.
but i am sure there are people who know a little more about this process then the both of us
All I do know is that people have been found to be wrongly convicted, and if our justice system has any room for error, we probably shouldn't be executing people. We better know for absolute certain (100% and no less) that somebody is guilty before they are executed.
my issue with this statement is that after the trial, unless one has a OJ jury, we are 100 percent sure of the particular person's guilt or innocence. Will that person still belive they are innocent of said crime? Yes - most likly because of the criminalistic tendancys of that person in the first place. If they are truly innocent, i belive it will be shown after 3 appeals of said verdict.
Quote:
Are most people on death row who say they are innocent guilty? Probably, yeah. But if even one of them is truly innocent, then our system is too flawed to merit the death penalty.
I disagree. If anyone is truly innocent then it will be shown during the appeals process
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
class 1996
