Final Thoughts on the Death Penalty

On January 12, 2003 Governor George Ryan of Illinois abolished the death penalty in Illinois.  His reasoning behind the abolishment was that of any typical anti-death penalty individual: there are things more important than bringing closure to the victims’ families, it is morally wrong, there are racial disparities, innocents may be inadvertently executed, and so on.  He also has a personal childhood experience that is used as a way for pro-death penalty individuals to sympathize with him (Governor Ryan was originally pro-death penalty).  I wonder though…did Ryan make this decision because his opinion truly changed, or does he still feel the same way about the death penalty and his associates just pushed him to abolish it?  Near the end of his speech, the governor says, “As I prepare to leave office, I had to ask myself whether I could really live with the prospect of knowing that I had the opportunity to act, but that I failed to do so because I might be criticized.”  My latter hypothesis is entirely possible. Ryan’s right hand men may have swayed him to make the decision by targeting his shame: Ryan would not want to live the rest of his life being criticized by anti-death penalty individuals and having a supposedly bad reputation.  Perhaps Ryan abolished the death penalty more for his own good rather than for the good of the state.  That is actually what I believe.  After reading through his speech, I feel that Ryan’s abolishment of the death penalty in Illinois was unjust, and I also feel that Governor Ryan appeased to his peers rather than making his own decision.  If that were truly the case, it would show his weakness and ambivalence as a politician. 

Governor Ryan’s arguments against the death penalty were substantially valid; however, that does not mean they are right.  He asserts that closure to a case should not be a primary concern: “What kind of victim's services are we providing? Are all of our resources geared toward providing this notion of closure by execution instead of tending to the physical and social service needs of victim families? And what kind of values are we instilling in these wounded families and in the young people? As Gandhi said, an eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind.”  Tending to “the physical and social service needs of victim families” will do nothing, simply put.  The families will always have in the back of their heads that their murderer is still out there, alive and well.  The only restitution that can be done to these families (and to the victims) is to eliminate the murderer.  By doing so, they can sleep at night knowing that the murderer will never harm anybody again, and that is the largest need of victim families.  In fact, a 1973 study by Isaac Ehrlich shows that for every executed inmate, seven lives are spared.  Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, frankly and rightfully states, “For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”

Governor Ryan, of course, brings up the argument about arbitrariness with the death penalty.  He asserts, “Our own study showed that juries were more likely to sentence to death if the victim were white than if the victim were black - three-and-a-half times more likely to be exact. We are not alone. Just this month Maryland released a study of their death penalty system and racial disparities exist there too.”  Why does this matter?  Seriously?  It’s like saying the presidential election system is broken because we have only had one black president in office.  This argument is futile; it does not matter.  Just because one race has been executed more than another does not mean that it is discriminatory.  Something to note as well is that Ryan contradicts himself by saying, “Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights has taken the position that the death penalty is being sought with increasing frequency in some states against the poor and minorities.”  Whites are not minorities.  Discretion has always been an essential aspect to the justice system; the justice system deems each crime as unique and solitary.  After about fifty years, I believe they have moved beyond judging a crime based off of appearance or background.  Murderers that are black, white, Hispanic, Jewish, Christian, or Islamic are still murderers. 

Governor Ryan’s main argument against the death penalty in Illinois was that the system is broken, and too many innocents are accidentally executed.  He claims, “Our systemic case-by-case review has found more cases of innocent men wrongfully sentenced to death row. Because our three-year study has found only more questions about the fairness of the sentencing; because of the spectacular failure to reform the system; because we have seen justice delayed for countless death row inmates with potentially meritorious claims; because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.”  Systemic case-by-case review?  How did he review these cases and come to the conclusion that more innocents are executed than the guilty?  Even with DNA evidence, there is no known proof of any innocents being executed.  DNA evidence may show that the deemed murderer may not have murdered a particular victim, but almost all of the murderers sentenced to the death penalty are serial killers, murdering more than one victim, and therefore they all die rightfully.  Most of these murderers confess their guilt anyways; by abolishing the death penalty in Illinois, Ryan may encourage the convicted to not plead guilty.  James McKay, chief of the capital litigation task force for the Cook County state's attorney's office, states, “With the death penalty off the table, there'll be even more trials. There'll be no incentive to plead guilty. I do not believe for one second that taking the death penalty off the table will save the state of Illinois any money whatsoever." Besides, our justice system has a countless number of safeguards and appeals for the death penalty.  Because of the thoroughness of every trial, it is nearly impossible for an innocent to be executed. 

These anti-death penalty claims, along with several others, do spark thought as to whether the death penalty is righteous or not.  In the end, though, I believe that it is a righteous form of punishment, and Ryan’s decision to abolish the death penalty in Illinois is unjust.  The question arises, how will justice be brought to the victim and the victims’ families?  Time and time again, the answer is by killing the murderer.  This is not murdering either, but rather killing as a form of restitution and self-defense, a way for the murderer to give back to the victim and a way to protect people from future harm, respectively.  What if you were a victim of a brutal murder?  How would you feel?