Illinois Governor George Ryan's blanket commutation of all death sentences in his state will be one of the hottest topics on blogs today - and probably for the next few days.  Rather than linking to any one of the many articles or essays on it (they won't be hard to find), I thought I would just offer a few comments of my own.

As I've mentioned before, I don't consider the death penalty to be a measure of justice.  It's revenge, plain and simple.  It's telling someone "what you did was so awful that we have to kill you".  Killing the criminal doesn't really accomplish anything positive.  There's no solid evidence that it serves as a deterrent by convincing others not to commit crimes, and it doesn't erase their crime or bring back back any of their victims.  Due to the cost of appeals, it's arguable whether its more expensive to house a criminal for the rest of their lives or to execute them.  And, of course, there's the wonderfully mixed message of "we have to kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong".

This doesn't mean, however, that I don't think there are times when the death penalty is warranted.  There are some criminals whose crims are so awful that revenge seems like the best idea.  I'm not going to deny that there are some executions I've felt really good about - such as Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Timothy McVey (though I had some mixed feelings about that one, since I knew that executing him raised the risk that he'd be seen as a martyr - and since being executed seemed to be what he wanted) and others whose crimes have been heinous and whose guilt is well-estblished.  If John Lee Malvo and John Muhammad are convicted of the DC-area "sniper" attacks (and it does appear that there is fairly good evidence of their guilt), I wouldn't mind seeing them put to death. But I don't try to justify this by saying that killing them somehow balances the scales.  The scales can never be truly balanced in situations like this - the evil that they have done is greater than even the forfiture of their lives can outweigh. 

The problem with the death penalty, though, is that it's pretty final.  Once a person has been executed, there's nothing that can be done if you find you've made a mistake, and that is the impetus behind Gov. Ryan's decision to commute the death sentences of all death row prisoners in Illinois.  He found that since the death penalty had been reinstated in 1977, 12 men had been put to death in his state, and 13 others, who had been convicted and sentenced to death, had been exonerated.  Had their executions gone through, they would have been killed for crimes they did not commit.  Since then, at least four more death row inmates have been found to be innocent and have been pardoned of the crimes for which they were wrongfully convicted.

When the price of vengence becomes the death of innocent men and women, that price is too high.  Sure, killing bad criminals can make us feel a lot better.  It can even make us feel somewhat safer.  But under our current system, it is far too easy for someone to be wrongfully convicted, especially when there are careers to be made and clearance rates to be maintained.  In Illinois, some of the convictions came about through the use of coerced confessions - some of which were obtained through the use of torture.  

I know that this decision will be very hard for the families of the victims of the criminals who actually are guilty, and now have had their lives spared, and I have a great deal of sympathy for them.  At the same time, however, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend that executions continue in a state where there have been so many wrongful convictions.  I hope that the families can take some comfort in the fact that those who truly are guilty will have to live the rest of their lives in prison, constantly reminded of what they did, and eventually fading into obscurity, forgotten by most people, and left to die a pitiful death, most likely alone and most likely without anyone left to even care.

What Gov. Ryan has done takes a lot of courage, and a strong sense of rightness.  Even though he is doing this near the end of his term, it is the one act that will most likely be linked with his name for the rest of his life, and may well determine if he has any kind of future in politics or not.  While the decision is certain to be controversial, I hope that history will judge him favourably and recognize the reasoning behind his decision as both well thought-out and fair.

Fiona wrote a few comments about an article published in the current New York Times. After reading the article, I had a few comments of my own. First, an excerpt from the article:

Leaders Promise Repeal of Provisions Hidden in Bill

By DAVID FIRESTONE

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — Congress will eliminate three special-interest provisions that caused a furor after they were anonymously inserted into the domestic security law last year, Republican leaders of the House and Senate announced today.

[...] The new language, which won the approval of many of the senators who were most angered by last year's maneuver, will remove a section that limited the liability of vaccine manufacturers in lawsuits. The provision, which no one would claim responsibility for, would have prevented lawsuits by families who say a mercury-based vaccine preservative led to their children's autism.

Dr. Frist, who wrote a similar provision in an unrelated vaccine bill, said he still supported the idea as a way to strengthen manufacturers as the first line of defense against biological terror. He said he would bring his bill up again, but it would go through the regular process of committee hearings and amendments.

It's good to hear that Congress at least as some sense of shame these days.  I have to wonder, though, that if these provisions are being removed or revised as a result of an agreement made at the time the Homeland Security bill was passed, why did they not just remove them prior to passing the Homeland Security bill?  It would have prevented much of the furor that occured as a result of these provisions (the one sheilding Eli Lily in particular), and would have avoided the necessity of Congress taking the time and effort to work out an agreement to remove the provisions. 

Unfortunately, whatever sense of shame Congress may have, it doesn't yet extend to actually admitting who sponsored or inserted these amendments into the Homeland Security bill in the first place.  As noted a few days ago, Helen Thomas has stated that the Eli Lily/vaccine protection amendment was inserted by Bill Frist, but as of this most recent article, he is still denying any responsiblity for it.

Members of Congress are supposed to be our representatives.  They have a responsiblity to work for the best interest of their constituents, and we have a responsiblity to pay attention to what they're doing and decide if we want them to continue representing us or not.  The problem is, if they're going to hide what they're doing from us, how are we supposed to determine if they're truly the best person to represent us in the Federal government?  I find it quite bothersome that amendments can be added to a bill without anyone having to acknowledge and accept responsiblity for its inclusion. 

There is far too little accountability in the government as it is, and the Bush administration has already made it clear that they think what little there is is unnecessary.  The government, however, is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people, making us "people" a rather important part of the equation.  As such, we deserve to have a lot more information made available to us so that we can better guide our representatives or decide that we need different ones.  

From Political Humour at About.com