The Death Penalty: For and Against

In the movement towards abolition, it is vital to gather knowledge on all aspects of Capital Punishment. The nearly endless amount of available information will allow all abolitionists to answer difficult questions with ease and accuracy. After reading In Cold Blood, by Truman Copote, it seemed necessary for me to focus more upon various sociological perspectives in the death penalty debate, rather than enjoying literary masterpieces.

Within sociological schools of thought, differences on capital punishment arise from particular views on punishment and the theories behind those views. In the current book I'm reading, The Death Penalty: For and Against, a debate takes place between two distinguished social and political philosophers. Louis P. Pojman justifies the practice of execution by focusing on principles of retributive punishment, while also giving numerous amounts of evidence to support his convictions. On the other hand, Jeffrey Reiman effectively argues that it may be plausible that the death penalty is a 'just' punishment for murder, but society is not morally obliged to execute murderers.

The book is separated into four sections. The first 66 pages contains an argument by Pojman on why the death penalty is necessary in society. The next 66 pages are dedicated to Reiman's argument and why he feels that capital punishment should not be used in civilized societies. After both arguments are presented, the authors give 17 page rebuttals to the opposing position.

Pojman begins his pro-capital punishment argument by defining punishment. Punishment, as he interprets, is "an evil inflicted by a person in a position of authority upon another person who is judged to have violated a rule"(5). After punishment, Pojman goes on to interpret the three major theories on punishment...Retributive, Utilitarian, and Rehabilitative. He sides with the strict equality interpretation of Retributive punishment. Within this theory, the murderer deserves to suffer in the same way he has harmed another human being. Or, at least, the suffering should be equal and similar to the suffering he has caused.

My frustration ignites due to his word usage describing executions as a deterrent to future murders. Pojman acknowledges numerous studies that show states without the death penalty have a lower per-capita murder rate than those with capital punishment. In response, he states that lower murder rates could in fact be due to the composition of the citizens, i.e. an influx in the Quaker population.

He also cites the 'Best Bet' argument, derived from the work of Ernest Van Den Haag. Van Den Haag argues that "even though we don't know for certain whether the death penalty deters or prevents other murders, we should bet that it does" (39). Lets take a closer examination at the last part of that quote.

Pojman and Van Den Haag both claim that we should bet another human beings life because the death penalty 'might' be a deterrent to crime. As an example, assume I am a public defender defending an innocent poor black male in the infamous courthouse at 26th and California. I might get a jury that represents my clients community. I might get a reasonable judge that ignores the race and class of my client. I might even get a prosecutor that isn't zealous or in search of political fame. Yet, even if all these circumstances are true, does this assure that these reasonable people will come to the conclusion that my client is innocent of the crime? I think not. Will my clients life be spared because of his innocence? Or, will his race and class decide his fate?

Claiming that capital punishment might deter crime, is as ignorant as claiming that a good defense, reasonable jury, and an honest prosecutor will vindicate a man who is innocent of all charges. Clearly, 'might' is not enough to take another human beings life.

Futher, Pojman states that, "there is a significant difference in the betting, however, in that to bet against capital punishment is to bet against the innocent and for the murderer, while to bet for it is to bet against the murderer and for the innocent" (39). Here lies the intentional misrepresentation of the key capital punishment dilemma. 123 individuals have been exonerated from death row since 1976. Countless others have undoubtedly been executed, despite their innocence (i.e. Carlos DeLuna). Therefore, how can Pojman ignore innocent men on death row? They are undoubtedly as innocent, perhaps even more innocent, than the original victim of the crime. Compounding Pojman's plagued argument even more, is his citation of Van Den Hagg's value system of human life.

A murderer saved +5
A murderer executed -5
An innocent saved +10
An innocent murdered -10

In summation, Pojman states that "to execute convicted murderers turns out to be a good bet. To abolish the death penalty for convicted murderers would be a bad bet. We unnecessarily put the innocent at risk" (41).

It seems as though Pojman frequently ignores the racism and classism that plagues the American criminal justice system. For when do innocent individuals not end up in prison, or more importantly, on death row? If I were to place a bet on capital punishment, it would be on the numerous executions of innocent individuals.

I will update this as I read further...

DePaulia Article:Abolition is Inevitable

Abolition is Inevitable

By Elliot Slosar

Pubished: DePaulia, hopefully others...

The death penalty offers the false impression that life is sacred, by taking it away. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, over one thousand human beings have been stripped of their lives. Proponents of capital punishment claim that it brings closure to victim's families; it is cost effective compared to life without parole, and that the Bible endorses a vengeful mentality. These myths have misled the American public for nearly four centuries. As of late, however, the Supreme Court has ruled favorably, numerous Governors have acted decisively, and the American public has altered its perception on the effectiveness of capital punishment. Undoubtedly, the penalty of death is on the brink of execution itself.

Capital punishment has been deeply woven into the fabric of our society. Although crimes punishable by death have changed dramatically, one thing remains the same. Namely, the death penalty continues to violate the Eighth Amendment, which, in principle, protects Americans from “cruel and unusual” punishment. In 1972, when the historic Furman decision was handed down, public opinion towards capital punishment was at an all time low. The need for vengeance and retribution had given way to compassion and redemption.

Similarly, recent findings of innocent men being sentenced to death have altered public opinion as well. To date, 123 men have been exonerated from death row. 123 miscarriages of justice. All too frequently, men and women have come too close to the ultimate injustice, the state sponsored murder of an innocent human being. This has undoubtedly provoked religious communities, politicians, judges, and the American public to reconsider the need for capital punishment. A recent study in Wisconsin asked residents if they preferred the death penalty over life without parole. 55% choose life without parole as the preferable method of punishment. The innocence movement has undeniably become the leading tool towards abolition.

During the past two months, the movement to abolish the death penalty has endured unprecedented success. On December 16th, a federal judge in California ruled that lethal injection procedures, as they were being administered, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Only hours later, nearly 3,000 miles away, Gov. Jeb Bush issued a moratorium on all executions in Florida. Two moratoriums on the same day sent a clear message to the American public. There needs to be a re-evaluation of capital punishment.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 38 states currently have the death penalty as a legal form of punishment. However, Illinois and New Jersey have formal moratoriums in place, New York has ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, 11 other states effectively halted executions because of lethal injection issues, and 11 more states are introducing legislation to abolish the death penalty. Out of the original 38 states with capital punishment, only 13 have the approval to proceed with executions.

In Back from the Dead, a book recently written by Joan Cheever, she remarkably researched the stories of all 322 individuals released from death row after the Furman decision was handed down. Despite constant isolation within a cage on death row, her research shows that only three of the 322 released inmates were convicted of murder once again. Undoubtedly, most people would assume that former death row inmates would murder again. Joan Cheever’s research proved quite the opposite.

Boiling blood flows within the veins of each electric chair, reeking of arrogant injustice and medieval barbarism. This same blood circulated through the moral compass of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s following attack on the death penalty. In the Furman decision he states that “It is excessive, unnecessary, and offensive to contemporary values.” The recent actions of numerous governors and decisions from countless judges have certainly shown that contemporary values finally oppose capital punishment. Taking into account the research of Joan Cheever, not only will the lives of death row inmates be spared; but soon, these former death row inmates will be reintroduced back into society. This is when justice will finally be served. In the end, compassion and redemption will overcome vengeance and retribution. Abolition of capital punishment is undoubtedly inevitable.

DePaulia Article: LP, Loop campuses electrified by Death Penalty Awareness Week

LP, Loop campuses electrified by Death Penalty Awareness Week

by Laura Bollin

Community Editor

Since the reinstatement of Illinois’ death penalty in 1976, there have been 18 exonerations from death row (prison inmates who were proven innocent and released) and 12 executions. Therefore, two-thirds of the people on Illinois’ death row were innocent. In a week-long series of events, the Campaign to End the Death Penalty organization is hoping to build awareness during Death Penalty Awareness Week, which starts next week. In 2000, former governor George Ryan introduced a moratorium, which means that death sentences can be issued in court, but no excutions will take place until the moratorium is lifted.

“The mission of [our university] states that as students and faculty, we should be dedicated to fighting for the God-given right of human life. You do not need to go to Sudan or Rwanda to witness grave human rights abuse. Human rights violations occur daily on death rows across America,” said Elliot Slosar, a senior political science student with a double minor in sociology and peace studies. “In Texas, a death row inmate is kept on lockdown 23 hours a day, allowed exercise for three hours a week and is allowed to call his family once every six months,” Slosar said.Slosar is also the president and founder of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty group.

The organization began last March, and is in its first full year. “The organization is designed to bring awareness to the DePaul community through activism and education,” Slosar said. The group holds biweekly meetings on Wednesdays at 9 p.m. on the third floor of the Student Center. On its off weeks, group members write letters to approximately 40 death row inmates from across the nation. The series of events is being co-sponsored by Amnesty International, Students for Justice in Palestine, the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Justice in Capital Cases at DePaul University.

The Office of Student Life provided the necessary funding and space for the event. Sociology professors have asked members of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty group to teach courses on the death penalty for one day a quarter, a step to raise awareness of the issue.

The first event will begin Feb. 26 with a press conference at the DePaul Center at noon. A new state Senate bill, S.B. 328 will be introduced for abolition of the death penalty. The bill hopes to replace capital punishment (a synonym for the death penalty) with life imprisonment. This bill does not replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole, because there is no parole process in Illinois at this time. Several high-profile advocates against the death penalty are expected at the press conference, including Illinois State Senators Mattie Hunter and Jacqueline Y. Collins, as well as Senate President Emil Jones. Members of Amnesty International will also be present. Law professors Andrea Lyon from DePaul and Locke Bowman from Northwestern University are scheduled to attend. Jennifer Bishop Jenkins from the Murder Victims Families for Human Rights will be speaking on behalf of murder victims family members that are against capital punishment. The national director of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Alice Kim, will also be at the press conference. DePaul’s chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty group is waiting on confirmation from other high-profile people, including Cardinal Francis George.

On Feb. 28. at the Loop campus bookstore, Steve Bogira, author of Courtroom 302 and a reporter for the Chicago Reader will talk about the death penalty in Illinois, the Cook County Criminal Justice System and his experiences within Courtroom 302. There will be a book signing after the presentation.

Rev. Carroll Pickett and Barbara Becnel will speak at a presentation titled “Witness to an Execution,” which will be held on March 2 in Cortelyou Commons, 2324 N. Fremont St. at 7 p.m. Pickett is the former death house chaplain at the Walls Unit prison in Huntsville, Ala., and ministered to 95 inmates before their executions, and was also in the chamber during their executions. Now an advocate against the death penalty, Pickett will speak about his experiences as a chaplain.

Pickett will also discuss his first-hand experience of the May 1989 execution of Carlos DeLuna, an execution in which new evidence suggests that it was a case of mistaken identity. DeLuna was convicted of killing Wanda Lopez, a single mother at a gas station in 1983. According to the Chicago Tribune, DNA evidence is missing from the case, and there is a strong reason to believe through reviewing interviews and court records that Carlos Hernandez, an acquaintance of DeLuna’s, may have actually committed the crime.

Becnel will talk about her battle to stop the execution of Stan Tookie Williams and her experiences in the execution chamber when Williams died in December 2005. Williams was the co-founder of the Los Angeles Crips gang in 1971 and received his death penalty sentence after he was convicted of murdering four people during a series of two robberies. His conviction was based on the testimony of witnesses facing charges themselves and circumstantial evidence.

On Feb. 26., Feb. 28 and March 2, students from the Campaign to End the Death Penalty organization will be on hand in the Lincoln Park Student Center to discuss the death penalty. The students will also have a display offering facts and statistics about the death penalty in Illinois and throughout the U.S. “The main focus of the display will be a replica electric chair, built from the same dimensions as an electric chair in Florida, notoriously called “Ol’ Sparky,” Slosar said. On the right side of the electric chair, there will be an exhibit commemorating the life and experiences of the 18 people that have been exonerated from Illinois’ death row. On the left side of the electric chair, 12 tombstones will be displayed to remember the 12 inmates who have been executed in Illinois.

There will also be 123 black and white balloons in the Student Center atrium with a picture at the end of each balloon, representing the 123 inmates that have been exonerated from death row in America since 1976. Storyboards surrounding the exhibit will provide information on the death penalty, including how the public’s opinion of the death penalty has been transformed over time, as well as statistics about executions and exonerations in the U.S. and recent news regarding the death penalty. There will also be a display showing the last meals eaten by inmates on death row.

“[Events like these] are important because they put a human face on the issue of the death penalty,” said Lyon, the associate dean for clinical programs at DePaul’s Law School, clinical associate professor of law, the director for the Center for Justice in Capital Cases, and the supervisor for the Death Penalty Legal Clinic. The clinic offers law students the opportunity to have hands-on experience working on a pending death penalty case.

“The Supreme Court has ruled favorably, numerous governors have acted decisively and the American public has altered its perception on the effectiveness of capital punishment. Undoubtedly, the penalty of death is on the brink of execution itself,” Slosar said.

The Campaign to End the Death Penalty group is planning events for the spring quarter, including a trip to Ohio or Texas to protest an execution, a concer in the athletic center, a movie night and an art exhibition that will feature artwork by death row inmates.

DePaulia Article: Executing Democracy

Executing Democracy
by Elliot Slosar
Staff Writer

A major setback occurred in our fight to abolish the death penalty. It was announced that Saddam Hussein will be executed within the next two months, pending an automatic appeal to the high tribunal in Iraq. Tortured to the point of death, Hussein’s execution will entertain portions of the entire world, while the majority watches in horror.

Executions are not televised in the United States because they would outrage society. For example, Frank J. Coppola was scheduled to be executed on Aug. 10, 1982. During this execution, it took two 55-second jolts of electricity to successfully kill him. The second jolt produced a horrid odor and witnesses soon heard sounds of burning flesh. Shortly thereafter, Coppola’s head and leg caught on fire while smoke filled the death chamber from floor to ceiling (Death Penalty Information Center). Although electrocutions are inherently painful, hangings are undoubtedly seen as more barbaric and inhumane. Despite this, the Iraqi tribunal supported by the United States government, has decided to publicly hang their former leader.

The death penalty is a mechanism used by the American government to oppress the poor and eliminate minorities from society. Minorities are often given inadequate representation within their cases, prosecutors are typically politically motivated, and judges are frequently indifferent towards administering a fair trial. After witnessing Saddam’s trial, it is obvious that we have replicated our flawed judicial system within Iraq.

Instead of Saddam being tried by the International Court, as was the case with the Nuremberg Trials, he was instead forced to partake in a mockery of justice within his home land. Iraq didn’t even have an independent judicial system before U.S. occupation. Iraqi prosecutors were zealous in their prosecution, and the judges, who were trained by the United States and Britain just months before trial, had already pre-determined Hussein’s sentence. After three defense attorneys were brutally killed, the chief judge having resigned from the case, the court ultimately decided that an execution was necessary.

The following five methods of execution are currently authorized in the United States: lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging and firing Squad. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, five executions have been carried out by hanging or the firing squad. In Iraq, the available methods of execution are unclear and undecided. Bakhtiar Amin, Iraq’s human rights minister states, "I personally hate to see anyone put to death…there is no humane way of doing it." At the conclusion of his trial last week, Saddam requested to be executed by firing squads. However, this was automatically refuted by the court, instead opting to slowly hang Saddam to his death. Hanging someone to death is the least humane way to take a human being’s life. Not only will this spur more violence in an already chaotic Iraq, but it will undoubtedly create more anti-American sentiment oversees.

Saddam committed horrible acts of atrocity that oppressed a nation. Despite this, his execution has created an international debate. As one of the last industrialized nations to use capital punishment, President George W. Bush states, "On Sunday, we witnessed a landmark event in the history of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was convicted and sentenced to death … we congratulate the Iraqi people!" How could one find so much happiness in torturing and then exterminating another human being?

Opponents of Saddam’s execution claim his trial was consistently flawed. Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Program states that, "Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever the magnitude of the charge against them … In practice, it has been a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards." Others stand opposed to Saddam’s execution based upon religious beliefs. Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s Council for Justice and Peace, said, "For me, punishing a crime with another crime, which is what killing for vindication is, would mean that we are still at the point of demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

He continued, "Certainly, the situation in Iraq will not be resolved by this death sentence. Many Catholics, myself included, are against the death penalty as a matter of principle." In the United States, opponents of Saddam’s execution are dismissed as radicals who support ruthless dictators. Those praising his execution won’t even listen to claims of an unfair trial or preexisting religious beliefs against the death penalty. As one of four industrialized countries with the death penalty, we have now brought our barbaric means of punishment to a nation that we undoubtedly failed to ‘democratize.’ thirty five year-old Abu Sinan said, "This is an unprecedented feeling of happiness ... nothing matches it, no festival nor marriage nor birth matches it. The verdict says Saddam must pay the price for murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis."

What would the verdict say if our President was put on trial for murdering 46,744 Iraqi civilians since the war started? (Iraqbodycount.net)

What would the verdict say if George W. Bush was put on trial for allowing 152 executions during his brief Governorship in Texas?

What would the verdict say if Ariel Sharon was put on trial for murdering 3,020 Palestinians from 2000-2004? (palestinemonitor.org)

Killing one individual will not bring back innocent lives taken in war. All defendants should receive a fair trial, instead of a mock simulation. Saddam should be sentenced to life in prison, not death. More importantly, the death penalty should be abolished, not expanded.

DePaulia Article: Final Farewell

Final Farewell: DePaul to host former governor George Ryan's last public appearence before he goes behind bars [Full Transcript]
by Michelle Stoffel
Staff Writer

As of Oct. 30, 1,053 people have been put to death in America since the death penalty was officially reinstated in 1976. So far this year, 25 executions have taken place, half of them from Texas alone. Illinois, on the other hand, has not executed a single person this year, due almost exclusively to former Gov. George Ryan’s efforts of commuting 176 capital punishment cases to life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Ryan was internationally recognized in 2000 for this act and the current moratorium on death penalty cases in Illinois. Despite being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, Ryan left office in January 2003 marred with corruption. He was federally charged with 18 counts of racketeering, fraud and conspiracy charges in December 2003. On Sept. 6, he was found guilty of all counts and was later ordered to go to jail starting Jan. 4, 2007.

Ryan will be making one final public appearance at DePaul before reporting to prison. He is the keynote speaker at a Nov. 17 event sponsored by The Campaign To End The Death Penalty (CEDP) called "The Death Penalty on Trial," which features a documentary from Emmy award-winning director Rachel Lyon, a speech from Death Row exonerate Madison Hobley, as well as Andrea Lyon, Director for the Center for Justice in Capital Cases at the College of Law.

Awareness grows

Early in his governorship, Ryan became an advocate for death penalty reform, declaring a moratorium on Illinois capital punishment cases in 2000, after allowing one man, Andrew Kokoraleis to be put to death. "People are so ingrained, like me, like I was," said Ryan. "You were raised with the death penalty and you knew it was right. The government never made any mistakes, and they went after people, executed them because they were horrendous people and they had it coming … To change it, people have to be educated. The reason I changed is because I learned some things about it that I never knew, or understood, or never bothered to find out about."

Ryan and the CEDP want to educate and raising awareness among the youth, particularly university students, the highest priority and greatest hope for improving the justice system and eventually abolishing the death penalty. Ryan said, "For the most part, people don’t understand [the death penalty], nor do they want to understand it; they think it works. It’s going to take an educational process to let them know what is going on."

The death penalty continues to be a controversial topic in America: with one side claiming the practice is archaic, barbaric and in conflict with the eighth amendment guaranteeing protection against cruel and unusual punishment; while the other side claims abolishing it means taking a soft stance on crime.

Key arguments which keep the death penalty in use is that it remains a deterrent to crime, provides the families of victims with closure and is cost effective because prisoners are not housed for an entire lifetime. However, it has been effectively proven that the threat of capital punishment does not deter crime and that in most cases it is not cost effective. The Los Angeles Times discovered that for the 11 capital punishment cases in California over the past 23 years, each inmate’s total averaged cost was $250 million.

The beginnings of a Reform

Feeling the death penalty needed to be reformed, Ryan created a committee which introduced 85 reforms to the state legislature. For example, when a prosecutor is looking at a first degree murder conviction, he or she may ask the jury for capital punishment based on a list of 20 aggravating factors which warrant it. One of Ryan’s ambitions was to whittle that list, which has grown over the years, down to four factors: the murder of a law enforcement official, multiple murders, terrorism related murder, and murder involving torture. He wanted to eliminate such broadly defined factors as "cold, calculated and premeditated."

Only 15 of those 85 reforms have been worked on by the legislature, and just a few are currently enacted. "Some of those things have changed," said Ryan. "Single eye witnesses can no longer put someone on death row, jail house snitches are controlled different, video taping is a process now that we are using that wasn’t used before."

Ryan's Fallout

After corruption and bribery allegations began surfacing in 2002, Ryan decided to make a drastic move and cleared the Death Row. "I commuted those sentences, because I couldn’t get any action out of the general assembly," said Ryan. "The commission went to work, spent hours, days, and months putting out this report with 85 recommendations for legislative change and the democrat-controlled house managed to pass out a few of them."

Originally accused of selling licenses illegally, Ryan was eventually indicted and convicted of all 18 federal charges of accepting payoffs, gifts and vacations in return for government contracts and leases while he was Illinois secretary of state, as well as lying to the FBI. Ryan was one of over 60 people charged in the investigation.

After he left office, Ryan was accused of commuting the Death Row prisoners in order to distract the public from his accusations, gleaming over years of apparent corruption with one quick gesture. Calling into question his motives, Ryan’s attempts at improvement was forgettable. Prosecutors have continued to ask for the death penalty in new cases. Currently, 11 prisoners are sitting on death row. The moratorium, enacted in 2000, continues under Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, however it can be removed at any time.

"We’re back in the death business," said Lyon, who is part of Ryan’s legal team. "[The moratorium] is a moot until the cases get closer to execution in two or three years. In the meantime, we’re prosecuting cases left and right, not exercising discretion, having learned precisely nothing from this experience."

DePaul CEDP chapter President Elliot Slosar invited Ryan to be the keynote speaker at his event so that something can be learned from Ryan’s attempts. Through this event and others like those CEDP offers, students and members of the community can become aware of the issues surrounding the death penalty. Slosar himself first adopted the issue in May 2006 when he established the DePaul CEDP chapter. "My frustration came when I worked for Chicago Religious Leadership Network in Latin America for human rights. I realized there were human rights violations in Guatemala and on the west side of Chicago," said Slosar.

Focusing on the discrimination against minorities and underprivileged in the justice system, from arrest to prosecution, Slosar said, "How many executions have to occur before students, activists and the community realize that this is genocide taking place in our backyard, paid for and funded by our tax dollars?"

Gov. Ryan Interview

Here is a transcript of George Ryan’s full conversation with DePaul student, Elliot Slosar, in conjunction with the Nov. 17 event in the Student Center sponsored by DePaul Students Against the Death Penalty---and featuring the ex-Illinois governor in his last scheduled, public appearance...

Elliot: You were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and received personal congratulations from, among others, Nelson Mandela, Pope John Paul II, and Desmond Tutu for personal integrity after you commuted in 2003 the death sentences to life in prison for all 167 convicts on Illinois’ death row. Was there any one reaction you will never forget?

Ryan: Nelson Mandela’s call was kind of a shock, I was sitting in Mannie’s Delicatessen, on Roosevelt Road, one of the great corn beef sandwich places in Chicago. If you haven’t been there you should go. Yeah he called me and I was sitting in there having a sandwich, from South Africa, to ask me to commute the sentence of these guys.

Elliot: How long did you speak with him?

Ryan: I met with him when I was governor, I’ll tell you a great story, how much time do you have?

Elliot: I have the entire afternoon, Governor.

Ryan: OK then, I went to Cuba; I led a delegation to Cuba. I was the first Governor in 40 years to go to Cuba. Because I recognized the Cuban representative when he came to Springfield while I was Governor. We had dinner for him at the Governor’s mansion. They had never been recognized by any state before in the union. They in turn invited me to Cuba. I took a humanitarian mission to Cuba; we took a couple million dollars worth of drug and school supplies to Cuba. We had international press, took a big 747 full of people, and from all over, the press were there from all over the world. It was a great trip.

Now fast forward. My staff comes to me and says that we should open a trade office in South Africa. There are a lot of black entrepreneurs that would like to set up and do business in South Africa. And after apartheid there is a lot of need there. So we set up a meeting, a mission to go to South Africa and open a trade office there.

We decided that maybe we would like to visit with Nelson Mandela while we were in South Africa. And my staff people make the calls, and we were told that of course Nelson Mandela doesn’t meet with Governor’s. He meets with heads of states, nations, but not with Governor’s because he’s an elderly guy.

The fellow that works with me picked up the phone and called our contact in Havana. And said (who was in Washington D.C) and his name is Remando Fernandez, and Remando said let me call you back. So he called back a few days later and said that he had us set up to see Nelson Mandela. Castro himself had called Mandela and asked for the meeting to be set up.

Elliot: Fidel Castro?

Ryan: Yep, that’s how we got in to see Nelson Mandela. So I got into South Africa, and we knew what day we were going to meet Nelson Mandela. They told me we could take six people to his house from the mission. We had a big load full of people that went with us to South Africa. So I had to pick out six people to go to Nelson Mandela’s house to talk with him. And with me was Emil Jones, the president of the Illinois Senate, his wife, my wife and I, and two other people.
So we got to spend a half an hour with Nelson Mandela in his home. It was really one of the great thrills in my life, to talk with a guy like Nelson Mandela. Who had every reason to be hateful and carry a lot of anguish and anger in his heart, but he didn’t. He is a remarkable, remarkable man. Those are some of the highlights in my Governorship.

As far as the commutations are concerned, the president of Mexico called me, from

the desert someplace in Mexico, with the Counsel General in Chicago, Carlos Sada. Carlos was on the phone and asked if I would talk with Vicente Fox, and the Mexicans are really strong opponents of the death penalty. And if there is somebody to be extradited to the United States from Mexico, they have to have a guarantee that they won’t be given the death penalty, or they won’t extradite them.

So Mexico is a strong opponent of the death penalty. So he called, and at the time, I hadn’t made up my mind on what I was going to do. I was still working on it. It was kind of a roller coaster ride for me. It was a pretty emotional time in my life frankly. I had already allowed one execution. While I was governor we executed one person while I was there. And after I did it, I said that I am not going to go through this again.

I guess if I have any regrets as my time as Governor, it’s that I executed a guy. … that I knew without question was guilty. He was from Chicago, a Greek fellow. … The Greek Church came down hard on me. The Greek priests, or bishops, came and met with me and raised all kind of hell. But you know it was an experience. There wasn’t any one reaction; there were a lot of reactions about what I did, from people all over the world.

Elliot: I met Sister Helen (Prejean) over the weekend, and she was thankful that you are speaking out against the death penalty. She said that what you did was one of the most amazing things anyone has done for the movement.

Ryan: But you know, I have to tell you. I am disappointed in the movement, because they didn’t take advantage of what I did. They should have been more pushy about what they did. They couldn’t get together. Amnesty, you know, didn’t want to do certain things, because they thought it would hurt the future. They didn’t just get together and do what they should have done at the time. And I think that because of this, we have lost some momentum.

You see you never know the true motive of some of the people involved. Some of them make a living off of being in movements like that. To solve the problem, there is no more need for that movement to be involved, or raise money like it does. Then there will be nothing more for them to do, they have to find another cause. It’s not true of everybody, but just some people involved, in all social movements not just the death penalty. They become employees and get paid, but if they solved the problem they would have to go find another job.

Elliot: People in the movement often lose sight in what they are fighting for. They have no connection with those on death row, and that in of itself is a shame.

Ryan: Or they are not genuine in what they are doing, they have a job that they are happy with.

Elliot: Have you ever lost a night’s sleep over that decision (to commute the death sentences), and why or why not?

Ryan: I haven’t ever lost a night’s sleep. I’m glad I did it and I would do it again in a heart beat. It took me a while to get to that point, but I have never had any regrets about it. The only regret I have is that I executed a guy. Through this whole process, that is my big regret.

Elliot: Do you have anything to say, and the DePaulia is being devil’s advocate here, to those who say politics was the motivating factor in your decision to hand out the death row commutations?

Ryan: Well, those are the small thinkers. That really can’t come and do their homework and look at a situation for what its worth. That’s a lot of the basic reporters in the business. It’s an easy way out for them, they say your trying to distract your other problems away for doing this death penalty thing. But if you look at the politics of it, it’s probably the dumbest thing I did politically.

Elliot: Wikipedia describes you as having “raised the national debate on capital punishment.” What remains to be done in the fight against it?

Ryan: Well it’s an educational process, the whole thing is. It’s like anything where you have a cause. People are so ingrained, like me, like I was. You were raised with the death penalty and you knew it was right. The government never made any mistakes, and they went after people, executed them because they were horrendous people and they had it coming. It’s an inbred thing in our society and has been for years.

To change it, people have to be educated. The reason I changed is because I learned some things that I never knew, or understood, or never bothered to find out about. And people today are very busy in their everyday lives, and they pick up the people and see Joe Blow got executed and he probably had it coming and that’s good. And I was one of those guys basically that did that too, I thought its part of the system, and we need to have it. And it probably deters crime to some degree. That’s what I thought until I got into it, until I got to looking at it.

We had these people on death row that sat there for 20 years, in a system of checks and balances that didn’t check or balance anything. And then to find out that they are innocent and didn’t do the crime, they just sat on death row, the checks and balances didn’t work. Part of the problem in the world today is political correctness. There is too much of that. We have to be more concerned with what’s right, not politically right, but what’s correct.

For somebody to sit on death row as an innocent man, or woman, mostly men, for 20 years is just crazy in our system. There ought to be somebody to come in and check this thing out. Like we eventually did. When we ended up with 13 out of 25 being exonerated that were on death row, it’s like flipping a coin. So its one of those situations, where people like you, young people like you, in your movement, have to deliver this message.

Eventually the U.S. will come to their senses and realize what the situation is and how we look as a society because we favor the death penalty and are eager to kill. States execute teenagers and minors because we are blood thirsty. And that whole thing will eventually turn around because of young people…. So just keep up the faith and keep up the cause and keep working hard to get it done. That’s why I am coming up to talk with your young people.

Elliot: What is your proudest accomplishment as a public official with over 35 years in public service?

Ryan: I don’t really have one. I’m proud of everything basically that I did in public life. In the 10 years I spent in the Illinois House, I think I contributed to make life a little bit better for people generally. I had more opportunities once I got out of the legislative body. You know when you are in a legislative body like the Illinois House, there were 189 members, it’s sometimes hard to get the minds of enough people to go along with you to make the changes that you need, or that you think you need but need to implement. The best place to do what you want to do is Governor.

Secretary of State was OK, and the Lt. Governor was all right. Speaker of the House is helpful, but the Governor’s position in government is the best position to accomplish things like a moratorium. The governor has some awesome powers, executed in the right fashion you could do a lot of good with it, but you could also do a lot of harm. So, I have no one accomplishment.
I did the Illinois First program that I am very proud of. We increased the number of schools. We built classrooms, we fixed the libraries that were broken, we fixed bridges that hadn’t been fixed since World War II, we built highways, eight years before I was governor there wasn’t an inch of new highways in Illinois. We accomplished a lot of things that I was glad we were able to do. And I don’t know if I would change a whole lot. So what did you think my favorite accomplishment was? The death penalty??

Elliot: Yes, that was my assumption

Ryan: Well, we haven’t really accomplished much there, that’s the problem.

Elliot: In Scott Turow’s book, “Ultimate Punishment,” he lists out all the reforms that your committee came up with, what do you think is going to happen with that? I know that Gov. Rod Blagojevich won’t bring back the death penalty until the system is fixed, I never heard about him actually implementing these reforms.

Ryan: That’s why I did what I did. That’s why I commuted those sentences, because I couldn’t get any action out of the Illinois General Assembly. The commission went to work, spent hours, days, and months putting out this report with 85 recommendations for legislative change and the Democrat controlled house managed to pass but a few of them. They were sent over to the Illinois Senate. But, it was an election year and nobody wanted to be caught thinking they were soft on crime because they made some reforms to the death penalty system. So they were just sent over to the Republican controlled senate, where they were absolutely killed. They got stuck in a committee and nobody ever heard of them again.

I was running out of time being Governor, and decided if I was going to do anything, I had to make up my time and do it. So that’s why I waited till about three days before I left the office to commute the sentences. I did everything I could to make the general assembly move those bills, but they just wouldn’t do it because it was an election year. Some of those things have changed, single-eye witnesses can no longer put someone on death row, jail house snitches are controlled differently, video taping is a process now that we are using now that wasn’t used before. But for the most part, those recommendations are just hanging around the assembly.

Elliot: Your last memory of DePaul was when?

Ryan: It was a couple of days before I did it. I pardoned some people there (Madison Hobley, Stanley Howard, Leroy Orange, and Aaron Patterson). Aaron is back in jail, and out of the four I pardoned, one of them, was wanted for another horrible crime. But I pardoned him because he was tortured to confess, and that’s why I pardoned him. And, he never got out of jail, he stayed in jail.

Elliot: What about Madison?

Ryan: He’s a good kid. Has good support at home. Has a family that supports him. And that’s the problem with these guys that spend 15 years in prison. When they come out their family is basically gone, they have no way to make a living, and their basically in trouble.

Elliot: What do you think will happen with the reforms?

Ryan: We were making some progress with the death penalty stuff. Even before I did what I did. I helped it some. Then along comes this terrorist stuff. And I think this has built up some support for the death penalty. People say there are reasons for the death penalty, and if someone can fly an airplane into a building, and do whatever they do, then the person responsible for that aught to be killed. So a lot of support that I think we had started to put down, has actually come back. I haven’t seen any numbers on it lately.

Elliot: Any last remarks?

Ryan: I just think that it is going to take young people to continue in this movement to get a change. It doesn’t come easy and it won’t come easy and it’s going to take a different mindset. People my age who have been raised and taught the way were taught, I think young people today have a different idea about it. It’s an educational process; you just have to keep educating them about it.

You know when I speak, and go into a room, I generally ask how many people know somebody on death row? And rarely do I get a hand unless there is a minority in the crowd. And if there’s a minority in the crowd, I might get a hand or two. Because they are the victims of the death penalty, and they know what it truly means. But for the most part, people don’t understand it, nor do they want to understand it. They think it works.

It’s going to take an educational process to let them know what is going on. It’s just a case of people having an understanding of it. And to go to the right places. The big part of this is political. The big reason that everyone is for the death penalty that is elected to public office is because they don’t want everybody to think they are soft on crime. It’s true. It is very political.
You have to reach out to the people who cast the votes. And those are members of the house and the senate in legislative chambers in every state in the union. They have to make a determination on whether they want the death penalty or not. And, again, that’s a group of people that has to be sure they will not lose an election because they abolished the death penalty. And, that there won’t be any reprisals for their actions. They have to be sure of that, and they have to understand it and know. We don’t put enough pressures on the elected members of the general assemblies, and the governors…

DePaul Students Against the Death Penalty

Hey Everyone!

This is going to be the new blog for our chapter at DePaul University. DePaul Students Against the Death Penalty (DSADP) is an organization dedicated to bringing awareness of capital punishment to the forefront of the DePaul community. This organization aims to show the injustices that frequently occur within the judicial through education and activism. The organization was created in the Spring of 2006. I hope you enjoy this blog and continue to check back as it will be updated daily!

Elliot

Founder/President of DSADP