Even before the start of clemency hearings that concluded Monday, the cause of death penalty reform faced an uphill path in Illinois. Many citizens see the need for reforming this state’s capital punishment system. But something short of a tough-on-crime bill usually makes for a difficult vote in Springfield.
The clemency hearings have only made voting for reform in the upcoming veto session a bigger challenge for Illinois legislators. And not because the hearings were about “public relations” for aggressive prosecutors, or “emotion” from hopped-up families, as some proponents of clemency for all Death Row inmates have patronizingly suggested. The hearings have, instead, established in coldly logical, compelling terms why Illinois has a death penalty–and why a broad granting of clemency would likely kill any hope of writing reforms into Illinois law.
Gov. George Ryan first raised the possibility of mass clemency last March. That was one way to goad legislators to vote for reforms: You folks in Springfield can ignore the need for building new protections into Illinois’ death penalty system–but if you do that, I just might commute every death sentence.
From the start that was a bad pressure tactic. The hearings of recent days have exposed the mere notion of mass clemency as something that can be embraced only by those who flat-out oppose the death penalty. For the majority of citizens that favors a death penalty, the hearings have been a powerful reminder of why many proven killers on Death Row have fully earned the penalty that should await them.
Before the hearings, Ryan’s loose talk of mass clemency was a terrible idea that would indiscriminately flout the difficult decisions of judges, jurors and appellate courts. But in the wake of the hearings, even the possibility of mass clemency–an option Ryan has left open for himself–also has become a destructive idea. Why? Because if Ryan wants a legacy of reform, he needs to take mass clemency off the table, once and for all, and focus instead on building a constructive political climate in which legislators can fix the Illinois death penalty system.
In short, the perfect way to undermine reform is for Ryan to leave open the threat of commuting death sentences en masse–a surefire way to alienate legislators and voters alike. The way to advance reform is for Ryan to flatly rule out anything approaching mass clemency and instead remind legislators that, given the serious flaws of the death penalty system in this state, voting to fix it is the right and courageous thing to do.
– – –
Regrettably, the posture taken by Ryan’s office since the hearings began has been defensive and accusatory–another blow to his own cause. The governor has come across as either clueless about the heinous acts of many on Death Row, or dismissive of the impact on the survivors of the murders for which they were found guilty. To hear him tell it, you’d think the victims’ families were trained seals, tearfully emoting on commands from conniving prosecutors.
After the initial hearings aired several egregious crimes, Ryan’s spokesman complained that members of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board didn’t appear sufficiently impartial. The comment could have been written off as sour grapes but for the fact that it came as two board members who had been visibly upset by the anguish the hearings had caused to victims’ families were being shunted off to other duties.
Next came a complaint that prosecutors had turned the hearings into shows of political advantage and rhetorical flourish. Speaking Thursday in Washington, D.C., Ryan joined in with other critics who blame prosecutors for requesting clemency hearings in the first place.
That’s unfair. Defense attorneys who file clemency petitions often don’t request hearings; they don’t want to dredge up details of their clients’ crimes. Prosecutors who oppose clemency often do request hearings so the crimes and their impacts will be aired. Blaming either set of attorneys for doing their jobs is wrong.
What’s more, the power of those hearings comes not from the anguished emotions they have provoked, but rather the competing truths they have exposed. Consider:
In recent years, the death penalty debate has focused largely on flaws in the process and the terrifying prospect that an innocent person would be executed. The hearings, by contrast, have reminded citizens of the gruesome nature of the crimes that have been committed–and the often predatory behavior of those who committed them. Example: One Death Row inmate who says he deserves clemency because his killings weren’t premeditated had, it turns out, hung three nooses in advance of his crime, each one calibrated to the height of his intended victims; he also brought duct tape, hand and ankle cuffs, and a shotgun. “By requesting hearings, prosecutors put on the table the justification for having the death penalty,” says Ronald Allen, a Northwestern University professor of criminal and constitutional law. “In cases where there’s a horrible crime and virtually no probability of mistaken conviction, many people believe that penalty is strongly warranted.”
– – –
The hearings have shown not how weak many of Illinois’ death penalty cases are, but rather how strong. Still, the fact that the hearings have gone badly for opponents of the death penalty is all the more reason why the system must be fixed. Ryan’s moratorium on executions will last for a while, but not likely forever. The question for proponents of the death penalty is whether Illinois will create a fairer, more error-proof system of determining whose crime merits death.
The fix does not lie in hearings, or in Ryan’s review of all the case files of Death Row inmates that the governor says he keeps on his desk.
Illinois needs a permanent legislative solution. Ryan should unequivocally rule out anything approaching mass clemency and shift the focus to pressing legislators to adopt reforms as quickly as possible. Ending the blame game with prosecutors and stifling his anger that the hearings weren’t what he expected is a good place for the governor to start.
