Death penalty proponents may view Papal pronouncements as fightin’ words

It has been a few hours since Pope Francis’ comments Thursday about the death penalty being “inadmissible” in all instances, and I’m still trying to figure out why anyone should view this as a radical change.

FRANCIS: Church to more actively oppose death

As a reporter-type person who has, on several occasions (although none since 2001 when the federal government put Timothy McVeigh to death), covered the process leading up to executions, one of the standard pieces of the story is that the Catholic Church is opposed.

THE POPE HIMSELF invariably will make statements about how cruel the concept is of putting someone to death as a form of criminal punishment. As though it is Homicide, committed in the name of Justice.

I know church officials I have spoken to have always tried to describe capital punishment as something obsolete – something that there’s just no need for in the modern-day world.

There are provisions in Catholic teachings that were taught in the past to justify an execution as a form of public protection. Meaning that the criminal in question was so violent and such a risk to society that putting the person to death was the only way to ensure that nobody else was hurt by his acts.

The governors who did away … 

Modern-day prisons and life-without-parole prison terms are considered sufficient protection – thereby eliminating the need to take away an individual’s life.

ONE THOUGHT I always was taught was that execution as a form of providing someone with vengeance for a criminal act was wrong – if not a sinful thought to have itself.

Almost as though someone who is eagerly awaiting another person’s execution ought to be making a trip to their priest to perform confession of their sin – and seek penance so as to avoid the pains someday of Hell and eternal damnation.

… with death penalty in Illinois, … 

But now, Pope Francis is proclaiming that execution “attacks” human dignity, even in those who have committed violent criminal acts. A thought that is not going to be a popular one amongst those who publicly proclaim their desire for more executions – and those who think that one of Illinois’ drawbacks is that we had the sense to do away with the state’s capital crimes statutes nearly a decade ago.

… and the governor who hints at bringing it back

To the point where Gov. Bruce Rauner’s political re-election strategy has included making pronouncements implying he’d like to see executions restored in this state (there hasn’t been an execution in Illinois since the 1999 date when Andrew Kokoraleis was put to death by lethal injection at the now-shuttered prison in Tamms).

IT WOULD SEEM that instead of papal pronouncements against execution every time a death row inmate comes close to an execution date, it’s now going to be an active part of Catholic teaching to publicly support abolition of execution.

Catholics are now going to have to become truly “pro-life” in their views on mankind and society, instead of using the label to define their opposition to abortion being a legal medical procedure.

As for those political people who happen to be Catholic, I know there are those who happen to think they’re obligated to follow their religious faith over all when it comes to abortion-related questions. There are some clergy who like to make overly public pronouncements of excommunication for any government official who doesn’t rigidly support viewing abortion as a criminal act.

Are we bound to see government officials now facing a conflict with regards to capital punishment? Or could this become the ultimate reason why we should view a government official’s religious faith as a personal view, rather than one controlling their public policy actions?

YOU’VE PROBABLY FIGURED out that my own leanings go against capital punishment. I was supportive back when Gov. George Ryan effectively ended the death penalty in Illinois (although there are those who view his actions as the most heinous of his record – more so than any of the offenses for which he was convicted and incarcerated), and thought it a good day when Gov. Pat Quinn signed the legislation that abolished the death penalty altogether.

GACY: For some, he didn't die painfully enough

I still remember the day I came to my leanings – it was May 10, 1994. That was the date John Wayne Gacy was put to death for the dozens of slayings of young men he committed in the 1970s.

I was at the Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet when the execution was performed. There was nothing about the execution procedure that was particularly gruesome (Gacy essentially was put to sleep). But I was most offended by the sight of a trio of nuns and a priest who gathered at the prison to pray for Gacy’s soul – only to be harassed, jeered and taunted by the hundreds of people who gathered outside the prison to cheer on Gacy’s death.

A sight I suspect we’re going to see much more of in coming years as the Catholic Church attempts to show compassion for all of mankind.

  -30-

EXTRA: Political strategist Madigan vs. amateur-hour gov Rauner

Gov. Bruce Rauner concocted a scheme to try to get himself some more votes come Election Day by trying to appear to be the guy who wants to bring back the death penalty to Illinois.

Will Rauner's death penalty fantasy ...

Yet in the ultimate evidence that when it comes to politics, Rauner is a rank amateur, it would seem to be that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is going to wind up using the issue to take him down.

RAUNER’S METHOD OF bringing the issue up was by using his amendatory veto powers to attach the issue to a separate measure – one that would impose a series of restrictions in Illinois on firearms usage and purchase.

In short, legislators who desire to have those restrictions take effect would have to go along with his death penalty plan for people who kill law enforcement officers or large numbers of people in one fell swoop.

So what does Madigan, the man who’s been a part of the legislative process in Illinois for nearly a half-century, do?

He introduced an amendment Thursday to an Illinois Senate bill now pending in the House of Representatives, with the amendment being “the exact language the governor suggested” to bring back capital punishment.

THAT BILL WILL have a committee hearing come Monday. Legislators will have their say on the matter at that time. As Madigan put it, “we look forward to continuing our effort to keep our children, our schools and our communities safe from senseless gun violence.”

More likely, it will give the Democratic Party majority that controls the Illinois House a chance to beat up on Bruce Rauner, knock about his bill, denounce him for trying political tactics meant to impede firearms restrictions that many of them previously voted for, and pretty much go out of their way to make Monday a very unpleasant day for the governor.

Eventually, they’ll probably take some sort of vote on Rauner’s suggestion, and put the spin on it by saying it was evidence that “the people” didn’t like the governor’s ideal.

... be killed off by Madigan's political skill?

It kind of reminds me of a moment some two decades ago – back when then-Gov. Jim Edgar and Mayor Richard M. Daley came up with a proposal related to a new Chicago-area airport.

THE TWO OF them made a public announcement about what they wanted to happen, and implied the General Assembly would follow suit in coming months. Yet then-state Senate President James “Pate” Philip didn’t think much of the idea, and really was bothered by the fact he wasn’t consulted as part of negotiations.

Which resulted in Philip having the Edgar/Daley proposal written up as a bill for the Senate to consider. They wound up rejecting it outright (literally, nobody voted for it), and Philip forevermore would say of that issue, “we voted for it, nobody liked it.”

Now I know some are saying that this may be a tactic by which Madigan ensures Rauner takes full blame for trying to bring back a capital crimes statute – an issue for which the state went to lengthy extremes to abolish in past years.

Which would wind up costing him many votes in Illinois – even though Rauner is looking solely at the ideologically-inclined who might get worked up over this single issue.

BUT I SEE it more as a way of killing the Rauner plan off, while possibly trying to save the separate issues related to firearms ownership.

Reminiscent of Pate tactic

Regardless, it makes Monday’s debate more about partisan politicking rather than about any criminal justice issue.

If you want to be honest, if this gets reduced to an issue of political gamesmanship, it’s most likely that Madigan will prevail.

For Madigan just comprehends the political process and how it can be used to get things done far better than Rauner with his anti-union dreams that he tries to pass off under the label of “reform.”

  -30-

Rauner wants to undo Illinois’ death penalty reforms to get himself votes

I think former Gov. George Ryan deserves praise for the way he effectively ended capital punishment in Illinois, and former Gov. Pat Quinn ought to get credit for formally ending the practice of committing homicide in the name of “Justice” in our state.

Is Gov. Bruce Rauner really trying to undo ...

But I also realize there are some people living in this state who have ideological hang-ups that cause them to despise the notion that we in Illinois no longer puts people to death as a form of criminal punishment. Which is what I suspect is Gov. Bruce Rauner’s motivation for actions Monday meant to try to bring back capital punishment.

RAUNER WANTS THE people who ridiculously think he’s some form of social liberal to actually be inclined to vote for him come Nov. 6 – instead of desperately searching for a third-party gubernatorial candidate.

Because the way things are shaping up, the number of people who’d be willing to vote for Bruce will wind up being smaller than the Democrats who will eagerly vote for J.B. Pritzker for governor out of the idea of snatching back the post from the GOP.

Rauner stirred up the death penalty pot on Monday when he used his amendatory veto powers to alter a bill that was intended to impose various restrictions on firearms ownership.

That measure included an extension of a three-day waiting period for someone to actually obtain the firearm they want to buy, a ban on bump stocks and trigger cranks that turn regular firearms into higher-powered weapons of destruction and allowing judges to issue restraining orders to disarm people considered dangerous.

... the actions of Pat Quinn ... 

ALL ARE IDEAS the conservative ideologues hate because they see them as restrictions on what they want to believe is a Constitutionally-issued right of all people to own firearms.

So Rauner will score bonus points with the ideologues if his politicking manages to make a mess of this proposal that was approved this spring by the General Assembly.

And if, by chance, Rauner were to actually get the state Legislature to accept his addition of a capital crimes statute for people convicted of murder against multiple people and against police officers, he’d be giving the ideologues something they fantasize about.

Which is why we’re now going to go through a partisan political mess in the near future over what will become of this measure that was one of several the Democratic-run Legislature approved as a reaction to incidents of mass violence occurring across the nation.

... and George Ryan, or just trying  ...

IT MAY BE the big ideological difference between the political partisans – the more liberal-minded want measures they think will reduce the violence, while the conservative-leaning amongst us want to have tougher penalties for those who commit such acts.

Like I already wrote, I supported the past measures that eliminated capital punishment in Illinois. Largely because it became blatantly obvious that our system was more than capable of issuing ultimate (and irrevocable) penalty to people who didn’t commit the crime.

Rauner claims he’s going to get around this by requiring cases where the death penalty is sought to be held to the standard of “guilty beyond all doubt,” rather than the “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” legal standard that is required for a criminal conviction for any other offense.

Which sounds cute. It sounds nice. But it is a ridiculous notion to think we can achieve. For as long as we have human involvement in the criminal justice system, there are going to be screw-ups.

THERE’S JUST NO way we can ever have an absolute truth within our system. Anybody who says we can is either lying to us or is seriously delusional. Neither of which ought to be trusted.

... to Dump Madigan! come November?

So if I view this effort as a political maneuver by Rauner, it makes sense.

He’s tossing out some rhetoric meant to appease the ideologues inclined to think he’s wrong on abortion, immigration and equality for gay people, hoping that it might get them to vote for him.

And if in the process, he manages to derail a firearms-related bill that they despise they’ll love him – even if, in the end, they wind up sitting on their hands and doing nothing come Election Day.

  -30-

Congress should have accepted veto; lawsuits won’t bring back loved ones

Honestly, the biggest surprise about the fact that Congress voted Wednesday to override a veto by President Barack Obama is that it took them so long to do so.
 

OBAMA: Congress should have listened

Obama is in the final year of his presidency and has encountered for most of his two terms a Congress controlled by Republican interests that has made it clear they see their purpose as political obstructionism.

YET IT IS only now that Congress could get its act together to put together the 60 percent majority needed for an override – by which it will get its way on an issue despite presidential objections.

It’s a shame because this particular issue is one time that Obama may have got it right, and the members of Congress will wind up giving in to the base sentiments of people whose own perspective might not be entirely calm and rational.

In this case, the issue at hand relates to the ability of people in this country to file lawsuits against foreign interests in our courts as they relate to alleged terrorist activity.

There are those who’d like to file lawsuits against Saudi Arabia interests whom they want to believe are involved with the actions of Sept. 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon.

THEY HAVE FANTASIES of a court issuing a financial judgment against somebody that they believe will provide vengeance that makes up for the loved ones they had who were killed in the violence of that day.

I don’t doubt they hurt. I’m just not sure what the point is of such lawsuits, since I can’t envision any Saudi interests or any other nation is going to care in the least what a U.S. court thinks, or rules!

Just as people here would be more than willing to disregard any foreign court that tried issuing a ruling against people here.

Which means that these court rulings wouldn’t really mean a thing – other than letting the people who file such lawsuits vent a little of their anger. A clogged court system isn’t worth it, even if it makes some people feel a little better about themselves.

THAT WAS THE basis of Obama issuing his veto of the bill that Congress previously passed. That, and the official reason given by diplomatic experts that all such a law would do is encourage people in other countries to file lawsuits in their countries’ home courts against U.S. citizens and business interests.

Which would mean a global collection of legal morass. Letting the lawyers loose to wreck havoc on each other. Just what the world really needs!

Because Congress – first the Senate, then the House of Representatives – want to go along with the people who dream it is possible to ever fully make up for the bad that happened some 15 years ago.

It was an overwhelming pair of votes that occurred Wednesday – to the point where it can be called a bipartisan measure to override Obama, Which is the reason there aren’t more overrides against this president – Republicans on their own aren’t large enough to blatantly reject everything presidential; no matter how much they fantasize about doing so,

THE PROBLEM WITH going along with this measure is that it encourages the vengeance mentality. Which, if you’re honest about it, doesn’t work. For people to recover from their pain, they need to let go of their hate.

It’s kind of like the death penalty, where you can put someone to death yet there will be family members of the “victim” who will persist in being angry. It may be the one aspect of the Catholic church teachings that makes the most sense; its opposition to capital punishment because of its opposition to vengeance.

The people who wind up filing these lawsuits that will now be permitted will wind up with nothing more than a hollow court ruling. It certainly won’t do a thing to bring back their loved ones.

Or ease their pain; which is supposed to be the whole point to begin with.

  -30-

Things got done during Quinn administration despite General Assembly preference for inaction

I can already hear the trash talk that will be spewed about Pat Quinn – the governor whose term ends Monday at Noon was a failure who brought down Illinois and whose very existence must be eradicated (along with that of Barack Obama) from history.

They’re the people who literally will be praying that Quinn gets smacked on the behind by the door that closes behind him when he leaves!

NOW ANYBODY WITH sense realizes how over the top that kind of rhetoric is. Because if anything, Quinn was the governor who managed to get a few things done despite the General Assembly’s desire at times to do nothing.

That attitude was most blatant with what Quinn had hoped would be the farewell gesture of his six years as Illinois governor – a significant increase in the minimum wage required of companies that operate in this state.

Anybody who ever claims that Democrats run roughshod over the desires of the people is absurd, and the minimum wage issue is probably Exhibit A in that argument. The Quinn years were nothing like 1995-96 when Republicans dominated state government, and it took the state Supreme Court to strike down the most egregious measures.

There was that referendum question that showed two-thirds of Illinoisans would have supported an increase. Yet the Legislature felt compelled to do nothing. There wasn’t even a token effort made on the issue.

IT IS BECAUSE Democrats, by their nature, are capable of being an ornery lot who can’t get along with themselves. The idea of Quinn leading some plot to impose his own will with a sympathetic Legislature doing his bidding is ridiculous.

It seems some people have watched the City Council way too much. Quinn is not Mayor Rahm Emanuel by any means!

There are the two issues that many political observers are citing as the key parts of the Quinn gubernatorial legacy – abolishing the death penalty in Illinois and actually approving the concept of legitimate marriage for gay couples (rather than having a court strike down the existing laws that banned such marriages).

Yet let’s be honest. Who thinks that Quinn came up with those ideas and gave them to us?

ELIMINATING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT in Illinois was an idea that had lingered for more than a decade since the days of George Ryan. Gay marriage came to other states, including some in the Midwestern U.S., long before it came to the Land of Lincoln.

It was when the Legislature could no longer resist the national trends that they finally acted as they did – and I’m sure there are a few people who believe now that there’s a Republican as governor, it is the first step toward repealing gay marriage and bringing back lethal injection.

Let’s also consider the ample problems our state faces in funding the pension programs maintained for state workers and educators.

How many years was the Legislature willing to ignore all the talk about how severe the debt had grown? How many “drop dead” dates passed before the Legislature finally went along with a Quinn desire.

AND HOW MANY of the legislators are secretly hoping that resolution manages to get shot down by the Supreme Court of Illinois – leaving state government (let alone the city and Cook County government problems that the Legislature also has to address) in just as big a mess as ever.

My own view of Quinn’s “legacy” is that he carried on his mentality of being the gadfly of Illinois government – the pain-in-the-behind who constantly pointed out the problems.

Back in those days, he often was laughed at, if not outright ignored, by legislators – who kept that same mentality in place once he became the head of the state’s executive branch.

I remember one legislator (a Democrat and member in good standing with the black caucus) once telling me that Quinn’s temperament was so quirky that he couldn’t be trusted to stand up in support for them. So they felt no compulsion to support him in return!

SO THAT IS most likely the Quinn “legacy;” not fully appreciated until after he’s gone and we see how much worse things can become (You know they will!).

And that date back in January of 2009 when Quinn entered the state Senate chambers to cheers from legislators in the moments following the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich now feels like it was even more distant in time than the Chicago Cubs’ last World Series title.

  -30-

Must we relive death penalty fight?

Illinois does not have a valid capital crimes statute any longer – our state officials abolished the death penalty a few years go after years of evidence indicating how flawed it was.

PORTER: Did he really do it, after all?

But it seems we still have some people determined to fight for the cause of putting people to death so as to satisfy someone else’s need for “vengeance!”

OR AT LEAST that’s the reaction I got in my gut when I read reports earlier this week that said former Cook County state’s attorney Richard Devine prosecuted an innocent man for a crime for which the state had previously sentenced the real “killer” to death.

The only problem is that this particular case is that of Anthony Porter – who for a short stretch was an international figure in the death penalty debate.

Porter served 16 years of his life in the Illinois Department of Corrections under a death sentence – and at one point was just a few hours away from actually facing execution by lethal injection.

But that execution was put on hold, and Porter was eventually released from prison due to clemency from now-former Gov. George Ryan. In fact, it was Porter’s case that supposedly motivated Ryan to think that Illinois’ death penalty system was too flawed to be kept on the books.

IT CAUSED RYAN to impose the moratorium on executions that remained through the time when the General Assembly finally voted to abolish the death penalty AND Gov. Pat Quinn signed that change into Illinois law!

Porter’s evidence of his innocence included the work of students of a now-former Northwestern University professor, who in working with private investigators got another man to say he committed the crime for which Porter was convicted.

And they got him to say it on videotape, which is what made the story so intriguing (and easy) for television to pick up on. Television stations everywhere picked up the story. That caused Devine to decide not to resist fighting to keep Porter in prison, and to go along with a prosecution of the man on videotape.

He ultimately pleaded guilty and received a lengthy prison sentence, for which he still is incarcerated – although the Chicago Sun-Times reported he could be up for parole in 2017.

BUT THE SUN-TIMES’ report focused on the fact that now-retired prosecutor Thomas Epach, Jr., is saying he wonders if the man now in prison is truly innocent, and if Porter really did do the crime for which he has been exonerated for the past 15 years.

I’ll be the first to admit that back when David Protess’ students showed their video confession publicly (I was a reporter-type back then, and I remember the death penalty fiasco in Illinois all too well), my gut reaction was to wonder, “How do we know he’s telling the truth?”

But nobody else seemed to be concerned. That question seemed to get swept aside in the storm over whether Illinois was too sloppy in prosecuting capital offenses that we couldn’t be assured the convictions were legitimate.

Although now, Epach is trying to argue the same point, saying in an affidavit, “It is my opinion that it was highly unusual, if not unprecedented, to make a decision to release an individual convicted of murder, based upon the broadcast of a video, the reliability and authenticity of which had not been thoroughly investigated and established.”

WHICH MIGHT BE a legitimate point if he had forcefully brought it up back then.

Now? It comes across as someone’s last-ditch effort to find a wrench to throw into the gears.

Does anyone think we can somehow undo the abolishment of the death penalty? Particularly since after all these years, it has come down to the ultimate “he said/she said” argument that a prosecutor usually would denounce if it were made against them!

Are we supposed to put an asterisk (*) next to Porter’s name on the list of Illinois Death Row inmates of the 1990s who wound up having to be released from prison alive, rather than in a cheap casket?

THIS IS ONE fight that is best left in the past. Otherwise, we might as well show down the whole criminal justice system – if we come to the conclusion that none of its verdicts can be trusted; regardless of which way they come down.

Let the “law and order” types mull over that concept, for awhile.

  -30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: Remember the "Ford Heights Four," another set of Death Row inmates who wound up being exonerated for the crimes they were accused of? The Chicago Tribune tells us their lives aren't exactly free of stigma, despite the freedom they have now had for nearly two decades.

Top story; new mayor, or old gov?

It’s coming up on that time of year when newsgathering organizations are going to feel compelled to give us the “Top stories” of 2011.

EMANUEL: Does Rahm rule?



A “year in review” story, if done properly, can offer up a punchily-written take that tries to put a complete calendar year in perspective. If done hastily or dull-ly, it is nothing more than a waste of space surrounding all the girdle ads.

YET I CAN’T help but notice a bit of spin being placed on these lists as they come up this year.

For I watched the “Chicago Tonight” program that aired last Friday, and saw a panel of reporter- and broadcast-types make it clear that the BIG STORY for ’11 was the departure of the Daley family from City Hall – resulting in the arrival of Rahm Emanuel from the White House to be our mayor for the next four years.

He has used his influence in subtle ways to impact public policy from both Washington and Springfield – as well as in brash ways to affect people locally.

Yet the Associated Press came out with its own take on the Top Ten stories for the year, and made it clear that Rahm Emanuel at City Hall is ONLY Number Two.

FOR THE TOP story in Illinois (the “near-unanimous choice” according to that wire service) was the whole second trial of Rod Blagojevich – the former governor who now faces the prospect of going to prison some time in March to serve a 14-year sentence (which could translate to 11 years, 10 ½ months if Milorod behaves himself while enduring incarceration).

Now in the interest of personal disclosure, I should remind you that I am a former United Press International reporter – having worked both at the Statehouse in Springfield and in Chicago for the wire service. Which means I have no personal qualms about writing something that says the Associated Press is full of it.

BLAGOJEVICH: Who's to blame?



And I also realize that “year in review” stories are basically space-filler for the week when there is real little news.

Yet the idea of elevating Blagojevich to the top slot is just absurd. I really suspect that the kind of people who compiled this list are probably the same ones who think that Reps. Bill Mitchell and Adam Brown have a clue with their ridiculous resolution to break the rest of Illinois away from Cook County.

MAYBE THEY THINK that making Blagojevich the BIG story somehow brings a sense of shame to Chicago politics.

It doesn’t – in part because Chicago political people have no sense of shame. It doesn’t factor into the equation.

Although whenever I hear the people from rural Illinois talk about Blagojevich and a legacy, it astounds me how they have forgotten how much of a role they themselves played in his becoming governor.

Remember that Blagojevich was the guy who won the 2002 primary BECAUSE of the fact that he got downstate Illinois voter support. The other candidates were too Chicago-centric to those voters, so they picked Milorod in overwhelming numbers.

IF THE WILL of Chicago, the city proper, had prevailed in that 2002 Democratic primary, we in Illinois would have experienced the concept of a “Gov. Roland Burris,” whose campaign was dominant enough in the African-American wards that he won the overall city vote.

If it had been the people of Chicago and its suburbs prevailing, we would have got a “Gov. Paul Vallas,” who truly was the one who appealed to the suburbs that comprise about 45 percent of the state’s overall population. It is likely that the only “Bridgeport” in his life would be the Sout’ Side neighborhood – not the Connecticut city whose school system he recently was hired by state officials to operate.

“Rod R. Blagojevich” is NOT some entity imposed by Chicago on the rest of the state. Which is what I think that surveys such as this AP thing try to reinforce.

Perhaps I’d take the idea of the federal government’s legal proceedings against Blagojevich more seriously if it could be argued that what is really being done is a crackdown on government corruption. Yet I couldn’t help but notice that the AP listings didn’t even include the trial of political operative William Cellini in their Top 10.

ANYBODY WHO KNOWS anything realizes that the Cellini trial – in the long-term – is more important than anything done to Blagojevich, who during his government service distinguished himself as a loud-mouth more than anything else.

Not that I’m necessarily arguing for Emanuel to get top billing – he can be just as much a blowhard as Blagojevich was.

Because I actually think the “Top story” for the year is the Illinois General Assembly – which gave us civil unions and the abolition of the death penalty. Those are two issues where a part of me believed our legislators would never have the nerve to do what was proper.

But they did, and they made major changes in the way Illinois will operate for the foreseeable future – while also ensuring that we advance further into the 21st Century, rather than lag backwards into the 19th.

And the silly resolutions that some downstate legislators concoct in response can serve a legitimate purpose -- they giver us all comic relief.

  -30-

When it comes to death penalty (or lack thereof), some just want to complain

I don’t doubt there are some people who will be permanently peeved that Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill that did away with the capital crimes statute in Illinois. Some probably will hold a grudge against Quinn, the man, for the remainder of their lives.

QUINN: 47 percent of Dems disapprove?



The question, however, is just how much attention should Quinn (whom a new poll says has only a 30.6 percent approval rating) pay to these people?

I’D ARGUE THAT the reason prosecutors are so intense for having a death penalty in this state is because they allowed these individuals to intimidate them. Because these death penalty proponents, particularly the ones who remain bitter over the loss of a loved one due to a violent crime, can be a forceful presence.

The issue, as I see it, is that a governor has to balance out all the sides on this particular issue before taking a stance. As much as I wonder why it took Quinn nearly two full months to do so before he finally signed the death penalty abolition bill into law, I do believe he listened to all the sides and tried to figure out the issue for himself.

Apparently, he didn’t listen to every single individual, since we have been getting reports in various publications, including the Chicago Sun-Times, from a Rolling Meadows woman whose daughter is dead, and the man convicted of murder for that crime had his death sentence converted to a prison term of life-without-parole.

The woman is going around saying she is so upset with the governor that she will actively campaign against him in 2014, and would be willing to make a heart-felt, soppy campaign ad for whomever tries to challenge the Mighty Quinn in the next gubernatorial election,.

SHE IS UPSET that her attempts to talk to the governor to convince him (if not intimidate him) to keep the death penalty got her nothing more than a chance to talk to a gubernatorial aide. Perhaps she really believes she could have persuaded Quinn to act differently.

I doubt it, since Quinn did include advocates for the families of victims of capital crimes among the types of people he talked to. The fact that he didn’t talk to this specific woman doesn’t move me in any way.

Now I know some prosecutorial types who argue that death penalty opponents do not adequately take into account these family members and their sentiments when we talk about the death penalty being improper.

As though the fact that the death penalty system has flaws that likely are never to be overcome because human beings are fallible by nature doesn’t matter. My guess is that some people would rather have the occasional wrongly-convicted person put to death, than have to do anything that might offend these particular people.

MY OWN FEELINGS about this particular aspect of the death penalty debate actually got cemented following state government hearings a decade ago in Chicago that then-Gov. George Ryan hoped would expose the flaws in the system and how close Illinois came during the 1990s to putting innocent people to death, in the name of Justice!

Instead, activist groups that back the death penalty managed to load up the agenda with testimony from so many family members who told their stories to such an intense degree that the mood of intimidation came down upon those hearings.

Any attempt to build support for a reformed death penalty procedure got crushed amidst gruesome stories. The General Assembly wound up passing nothing in the way of reform. I remain convinced that had the state Legislature given Ryan some bill to sign that he could have claimed was a procedural reform, he never would have taken the drastic action of his final days in office that brought a halt to actual executions and also commuted the death sentences of the 160-plus condemned inmates in Illinois.

If there is anyone I have sympathy for these days, it is not these family members. It is the people in the State Appellate Defender’s office, some 37 of whom are now learning that their jobs are being cut.

THE HERALD & Review newspaper of Decatur reported that the move is meant to save state government about $4.7 million. I have no problem with budget cuts, and realize that people are going to lose their jobs – regardless of how unpleasant that experience is.

But these particular individuals are losing their jobs because they were the attorneys provided to indigent “death row” inmates to help them with their legal appeals – which were mandatory. They had to be heard by the courts.

Which is why it is cheaper for the state to do without the death penalty. An inmate in the general population whose appeals can be dismissed by the courts as frivolous is much cheaper than a condemned inmate kept under much more intense security whose appeals must be heard through three rounds that must end at the Supreme Court of the United States.

So while I realize it is a “good” thing that the state budget can be cut, I still sympathize with those attorneys who now need to find new work. Of course, I suspect the family members probably think those attorneys ARE the problem for taking on these particular cases. But that is an issue to be debated on another day.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Will the ideologues someday praise Obama?

I have always suspected that much of the conservative ideologue rhetoric we hear these days reeks of the aroma of elephant droppings, a view that I had confirmed upon learning of possible presidential aspirant Haley Barbour during his appearance Monday in Chicago.

BARBOUR: Will our business execs listen?



The angle being played up by many political observers is that of Barbour going onto President Barack Obama’s home turf and “trash-talking” him – as though that somehow shows the Mississippi governor to have a particularly strong sense of course.

THERE MAY BE some sense of that. Yet the part of Barbour’s talk that caught my attention was his attack on Obama, who supposedly lacks “leadership” skills that past presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton possessed.

Clinton?!??

Sure enough, Barbour included Bill – the man who used to get demonized as the man who was dragging our society straight to Hades and whom they impeached and tried to remove from office – in the litany of people to whom Obama falls short.

“Beginning in 2009, those policies were abandoned,” Barbour said of the fiscal policies of Reagan and Clinton. “In their place, the Obama administration substituted an unlimited faith in limitless government.”

OF COURSE, WHAT Barbour was praising about the Clinton years was William J.’s willingness to incorporate GOP ideas, such as NAFTA, into federal policy. Also, it’s not like any liberal-minded person would ever have thought up “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” except for a willingness to compromise on the issue of gay people serving in the U.S. military – a “compromise” we now see as pointless.

By comparison, Barbour wanted the business types of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce to think of Obama as an uncompromising ideologue. Just two problems with that lack of logic. One is that if he really were uncompromising, he wouldn’t have the progressive factions so disappointed with him. Also, the business types are going to be more practical-minded. They are the ones who accepted Obama’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, as mayor, and made his election last month the inevitability it ultimately became.

But Obama is here and now, so he gets demonized in ways comparable to the way Clinton used to get trashed by ideologues. Does this mean that some time in the 2020s, another Democratic president will get blasted by the GOP, who will say they long for the  “reasonable” days of Obama?

What else was notable on the shores of the southwesternmost corner of Lake Michigan?

WORKING THEIR WAY DOWN THE POLITICAL APPLICATION PROCESS: State Rep. Anazette Collins, D-Chicago, is now state Sen. Anazette Collins, D-Chicago. Democratic committeemen from the Near West Side promoted her to fill the gap created when Rickey Hendon resigned his seat in the Illinois state Senate.

COLLINS: The new senator



The appointment is a totally conventional one – giving the lower-level official a promotion. But now, it means those committeemen have to fill the gap they created in the Illinois House of Representatives.

So for those people who seriously wanted Scott Lee Cohen to receive a political position, perhaps he’d be interested in serving in the House. Of course, I seem to recall Cohen last year tossing out hints that it was House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, who orchestrated the conditions that caused him to voluntarily surrender the Democratic Party’s nomination for lieutenant governor once the sordid details of his divorce and girlfriends became publicly known.

Would Cohen be willing to put himself in a position where he’d have to be subservient to Madigan? Somehow, I suspect we have a better chance of seeing state Rep. Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins, D-Chicago – the mayoral hopeful who also was in the running for the state Senate seat.

DuPAGE DOES RIGHT (AND ONLY) THING: It became official Monday, when prosecutors in DuPage County decided not to seek the death penalty for a man facing murder charges for the deaths of his mother and a sex escort.

Prosecutors had intended to seek capital punishment for Gary Schuning, and admitted in court that the only reason they’re no longer doing so is because Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill that eliminated the capital crimes statute effective July 1. So the DuPage action acknowledges reality, while sparing Quinn the ordeal of someday having to commute another death sentence to life without the option of parole.

That is the prison term prosecutors will now be seeking when Schuning’s trial begins next month.

And as for those people who persist in saying that eliminating the death penalty will somehow cost the state more money, take the prosecution’s admission that turning this case from a capital case to a mere criminal case will mean less of a jury pool needed, which should mean the trial will proceed faster. If found guilty, it also means Schuning will not be entitled to legal appeals that MUST be considered by a court. That is where the real expense piles up – an expense that will now be a thing of the past in Illinois.

  -30-

Executing the Death Penalty? Or will prosecutors seek legal loopholes to keep?

Too many prosecutors, particularly when it comes to violent crime, view themselves as being similar to Alex Vraciu, Jr., a Navy fighter pilot who -- with 19 "enemy" aircraft shot down -- was the fourth-ranking "ace" of World War II. Image provided by DePauw University.

To me, there was always something a bit perverse about the criminal prosecutors who insist they need to have a death penalty in order to do their jobs.

During my two-plus decades as a reporter-type person, I have known prosecutors who can give you the exact number of convictions they have gained in their career, and can even tell you the number of people who are on “death row” because of their work.

IT ALMOST SEEMS to me like a World War I (or II)-era fighter pilot, making marks on the side of his aircraft every time he shoots down an “enemy” fighter. Which makes me think their real opposition to Gov. Pat Quinn’s decision Wednesday to do away with the state’s capital crimes statute is because it challenges the very way they view their jobs.

I’d hate to think that the opposition being expressed across the state by state’s attorneys is because some of them are going to have to find a new way of evaluating their professional skill in putting people away from the rest of society, and because those prosecutors who have significant totals of death row inmates in their record now have a statistic that makes them appear to be incredibly obsolete – if not downright morbid.

                                       

If it reads to you like I’m being overly harsh with prosecutors, it is because my gut reaction in the hours following Quinn’s announcement that the death penalty in Illinois will be no more as of July 1 is one of disgust.

Not because of what Quinn did. I think he did exactly the right thing. Both in abolishing the capital crimes statute, and in realizing that Illinois would look incredibly stupid if 15 people continued to remain on “death row” in this state. So he officially commuted all of those sentences to life prison terms, without an option for parole.

BERLIN: Just talk, or going too far?

WHAT BOTHERS ME is the prosecutorial reaction, particularly the one coming from suburban DuPage County, where State’s Attorney Robert Berlin went overboard with his rhetoric in telling reporter-types, “Today is a victory for murderers across Illinois. Violent offenders can now murder police officers, kill victims during forcible felonies, kill multiple victims and kill witnesses without fear of receiving the death penalty.” I've heard hysterical defense attorneys who didn't get that carried away.

What bothers me more than his talk are his potential actions. There is a case in the DuPage County court system coming up that prosecutors were hoping to seek a death sentence for Gary Schuning. Berlin says prosecutors will decide what to do in the next couple of weeks.

Which sounds to me way too much like he’d like to find a legal loophole by which he could still get in one final “kill” before the death penalty disappears in Illinois.

Prosecutors knowing that the “spirit of the law” clearly says one thing, but they find a way to achieve the exact opposite. That kind of thinking is why so many people in our society don’t trust attorneys.

COULD WE WIND up with a system where Quinn has to keep alert in coming years for cases of condemned inmates whom he has to commute to “life without parole,” all because some prosecutor wanted to try to bolster his record with “one more kill?”

I can’t help but think that doing anything but accepting that Illinois is now among the third of the nation that does not have a capital crimes statute is repulsive – perhaps almost as much as the acts for which Schuning himself currently faces charges of murder (his mother and a sex escort, for those who want the titillating details).

I certainly find the fact that some prosecutors may try to slip in a final death penalty conviction before the “letter of the law” makes their behavior illegal to be more repulsive than the fact that another inmate from DuPage County, Brian Dugan, will now never have to face the threat of dying due to a lethal injection of three fatal chemicals.

If anything, the obsession some people have had with the death penalty with regards to Dugan and the previous inmates who once faced charges for the 1983 death of 7-year-old Jeanine Nicarico is some of the best evidence for why we’re better off not having it as an option.

SOME CASES JUST get people too worked up into wanting to create images of a dead inmate corpse. In those cases, the gut feeling gets the best of our society’s common sense, and caused many of the legal errors and flaws that are the reasons why Quinn felt the need to sign the bill into law.

Doing away with the death penalty keeps us from falling victim to our base, gutteral instincts. In some ways, it encourages those instincts to prevail. Which makes me wonder if we as a society are more safe in a state without capital punishment than one with it.

As for those people who want to think we’re now in the minority in doing away with capital punishment, I can’t help but note that the states without a death penalty include Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa – our Midwestern neighbors. Perhaps doing away with a capital crimes statute is merely evidence of Midwest common sense that we like to think we possess.

Perhaps we should be wondering why Missouri, Ohio and Indiana haven’t joined the rest of us – although in the case of the Hoosier State, those people are still quarrelling over smoking bans in public places. We should expect they will bring up the rear on this issue.

  -30-