|
Four years ago I was sworn in as the 39th Governor of Illinois. That was
just four short years ago - that's when I was a firm believer in the
American System of Justice and the death penalty. I believed that the
ultimate penalty for the taking of a life was administrated in a just and
fair manner.
Today - 3 days before I end my term as Governor, I stand before you to
explain my frustrations and deep concerns about both the administration and
the penalty of death. It is fitting that we are gathered here today at
Northwestern University with the students, teachers, lawyers and
investigators who first shed light on the sorrowful condition of Illinois'
death penalty system. Professors Larry Marshall, Dave Protess have and
their students along with investigators Paul Ciolino have gone above the
call. They freed the falsely accused Ford Heights Four, they saved Anthony
Porter's life, they fought for Rolando Cruz and Alex Hernandez. They
devoted time and effort on behalf of Aaron Patterson, a young man who lost
15 years of his youth sitting among the condemned, and LeRoy Orange, who
lost 17 of the best years of his life on death row.
It is also proper that we are together with dedicated people like Andrea
Lyon who has labored on the front lines trying capital cases for many years
and who is now devoting her passion to creating an innocence center at De
Paul University. You saved Madison Hobley's life.
Together you spared the lives and secured the freedom of 17 men - men who
were wrongfully convicted and rotting in the condemned units of our state
prisons. What you have achieved is of the highest calling - Thank You!
Yes, it is right that I am here with you, where, in a manner of speaking,
my journey from staunch supporters of capital punishment to reformer all
began. But I must tell you - since the beginning of our journey - my
thoughts and feelings about the death penalty have changed many, many
times. I realize that over the course of my reviews I had said that I would
not do blanket commutation. I have also said it was an option that was
there and I would consider all options.
During my time in public office I have always reserved my right to change
my mind if I believed it to be in the best public interest, whether it be
about taxes, abortions or the death penalty. But I must confess that the
debate with myself has been the toughest concerning the death penalty. I
suppose the reason the death penalty has been the toughest is because it is
so final - the only public policy that determines who lives and who dies.
In addition it is the only issue that attracts most of the legal minds
across the country. I have received more advice on this issue than any
other policy issue I have dealt with in my 35 years of public service. I
have kept an open mind on both sides of the issues of commutation for life
or death.
I have read, listened to and discussed the issue with the families of the
victims as well as the families of the condemned. I know that any decision
I make will not be accepted by one side or the other. I know that my
decision will be just that - my decision - based on all the facts I could
gather over the past 3 years. I may never be comfortable with my final
decision, but I will know in my heart, that I did my very best to do the
right thing.
Having said that I want to share a story with you:
I grew up in Kankakee which even today is still a small midwestern town, a
place where people tend to know each other. Steve Small was a neighbor. I
watched him grow up. He would babysit my young children - which was not for
the faint of heart since Lura Lynn and I had six children, 5 of them under
the age of 3. He was a bright young man who helped run the family business.
He got married and he and his wife had three children of their own. Lura
Lynn was especially close to him and his family. We took comfort in knowing
he was there for us and we for him.
One September midnight he received a call at his home. There had been a
break-in at the nearby house he was renovating. But as he left his house,
he was seized at gunpoint by kidnappers. His captors buried him alive in a
shallow hole. He suffocated to death before police could find him.
His killer led investigators to where Steve's body was buried. The killer,
Danny Edward was also from my hometown. He now sits on death row. I also
know his family. I share this story with you so that you know I do not come
to this as a neophyte without having experienced a small bit of the bitter
pill the survivors of murder must swallow.
My responsibilities and obligations are more than my neighbors and my
family. I represent all the people of Illinois, like it or not. The
decision I make about our criminal justice system is felt not only here,
but the world over.
The other day, I received a call from former South African President Nelson
Mandela who reminded me that the United States sets the example for justice
and fairness for the rest of the world. Today the United States is not in
league with most of our major allies: Europe, Canada, Mexico, most of South
and Central America. These countries rejected the death penalty. We are
partners in death with several third world countries. Even Russia has
called a moratorium.
The death penalty has been abolished in 12 states. In none of these states
has the homicide rate increased. In Illinois last year we had about 1000
murders, only 2 percent of that 1000 were sentenced to death. Where is the
fairness and equality in that? The death penalty in Illinois is not imposed
fairly or uniformly because of the absence of standards for the 102
Illinois State Attorneys, who must decide whether to request the death
sentence. Should geography be a factor in determining who gets the death
sentence? I don't think so but in Illinois it makes a difference. You are 5
times more likely to get a death sentence for first degree murder in the
rural area of Illinois than you are in Cook County. Where is the justice
and fairness in that - where is the proportionality?
The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu wrote to me this week stating that "to take
a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice. He says
justice allows for mercy, clemency and compassion. These virtues are not
weakness."
"In fact the most glaring weakness is that no matter how efficient and fair
the death penalty may seem in theory, in actual practice it is primarily
inflicted upon the weak, the poor, the ignorant and against racial
minorities. " That was a quote from Former California Governor Pat Brown.
He wrote that in his book - Public Justice, Private Mercy he wrote that
nearly 50 years ago - nothing has changed in nearly 50 years.
I never intended to be an activist on this issue. I watched in surprise as
freed death row inmate Anthony Porter was released from jail. A free man,
he ran into the arms of Northwestern University Professor Dave Protess who
poured his heart and soul into proving Porter's innocence with his
journalism students.
He was 48 hours away from being wheeled into the execution chamber where
the state would kill him.
It would all be so antiseptic and most of us would not have even paused,
except that Anthony Porter was innocent of the double murder for which he
had been condemned to die.
After Mr. Porter's case there was the report by Chicago Tribune reporters
Steve Mills and Ken Armstrong documenting the systemic failures of our
capital punishment system. Half of the nearly 300 capital cases in Illinois
had been reversed for a new trial or resentencing.
Nearly Half!
33 of the death row inmates were represented at trial by an attorney who
had later been disbarred or at some point suspended from practicing law.
Of the more than 160 death row inmates, 35 were African American defendants
who had been convicted or condemned to die by all-white juries.
More than two-thirds of the inmates on death row were African American.
46 inmates were convicted on the basis of testimony from jailhouse informants.
I can recall looking at these cases and the information from the
Mills/Armstrong series and asking my staff: How does that happen? How in
God's name does that happen? I'm not a lawyer, so somebody explain it to me.
But no one could. Not to this day.
Then over the next few months. There were three more exonerated men, freed
because their sentence hinged on a jailhouse informant or new DNA
technology proved beyond a shadow of doubt their innocence.
We then had the dubious distinction of exonerating more men than we had
executed. 13 men found innocent, 12 executed.
As I reported yesterday, there is not a doubt in my mind that the number of
innocent men freed from our Death Row stands at 17, with the pardons of
Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley, Stanley Howard and Leroy Orange.
That is an absolute embarrassment. 17 exonerated death row inmates is
nothing short of a catastrophic failure. But the 13, now 17 men, is just
the beginning of our sad arithmetic in prosecuting murder cases. During the
time we have had capital punishment in Illinois, there were at least 33
other people wrongly convicted on murder charges and exonerated. Since we
reinstated the death penalty there are also 93 people - 93 - where our
criminal justice system imposed the most severe sanction and later
rescinded the sentence or even released them from custody because they were
innocent.
How many more cases of wrongful conviction have to occur before we can all
agree that the system is broken?
Throughout this process, I have heard many different points of view
expressed. I have had the opportunity to review all of the cases involving
the inmates on death row. I have conducted private group meetings, one in
Springfield and one in Chicago, with the surviving family members of
homicide victims. Everyone in the room who wanted to speak had the
opportunity to do so. Some wanted to express their grief, others wanted to
express their anger. I took it all in.
My commission and my staff had been reviewing each and every case for three
years. But, I redoubled my effort to review each case personally in order
to respond to the concerns of prosecutors and victims' families. This
individual review also naturally resulted in a collective examination of
our entire death penalty system.
I also had a meeting with a group of people who are less often heard from,
and who are not as popular with the media. The family members of death row
inmates have a special challenge to face. I spent an afternoon with those
family members at a Catholic church here in Chicago. At that meeting, I
heard a different kind of pain expressed. Many of these families live with
the twin pain of knowing not only that, in some cases, their family member
may have been responsible for inflicting a terrible trauma on another
family, but also the pain of knowing that society has called for another
killing. These parents, siblings and children are not to blame for the
crime committed, yet these innocent stand to have their loved ones killed
by the state. As Mr. Mandela told me, they are also branded and scarred for
life because of the awful crime committed by their family member.
Others were even more tormented by the fact that their loved one was
another victim, that they were truly innocent of the crime for which they
were sentenced to die.
It was at this meeting that I looked into the face of Claude Lee, the
father of Eric Lee, who was convicted of killing Kankakee police officer
Anthony Samfay a few years ago. It was a traumatic moment, once again, for
my hometown. A brave officer, part of that thin blue line that protects
each of us, was struck down by wanton violence. If you will kill a police
officer, you have absolutely no respect for the laws of man or God.
I've know the Lee family for a number of years. There does not appear to be
much question that Eric was guilty of killing the officer. However, I can
say now after our review, there is also not much question that Eric is
seriously ill, with a history of treatment for mental illness going back a
number of years.
The crime he committed was a terrible one - killing a police officer.
Society demands that the highest penalty be paid.
But I had to ask myself - could I send another man's son to death under the
deeply flawed system of capital punishment we have in Illinois? A troubled
young man, with a history of mental illness? Could I rely on the system of
justice we have in Illinois not to make another horrible mistake? Could I
rely on a fair sentencing?
In the United States the overwhelming majority of those executed are
psychotic, alcoholic, drug addicted or mentally unstable. The frequently
are raised in an impoverished and abusive environment.
Seldom are people with money or prestige convicted of capital offenses,
even more seldom are they executed.
To quote Governor Brown again, he said "society has both the right and the
moral duty to protect itself against its enemies. This natural and
prehistoric axiom has never successfully been refuted. If by ordered death,
society is really protected and our homes and institutions guarded, then
even the most extreme of all penalties can be justified."
"Beyond its honor and incredibility, it has neither protected the innocent
nor deterred the killers. Publicly sanctioned killing has cheapened human
life and dignity without the redeeming grace which comes from justice
metered out swiftly, evenly, humanely."
At stake throughout the clemency process, was whether some, all or none of
these inmates on death row would have their sentences commuted from death
to life without the possibility parole.
One of the things discussed with family members was life without parole was
seen as a life filled with perks and benefits.
Some inmates on death row don't want a sentence of life without parole.
Danny Edwards wrote me and told me not to do him any favors because he
didn't want to face a prospect of a life in prison without parole. They
will be confined in a cell that is about 5-feet-by-12 feet, usually
double-bunked. Our prisons have no air conditioning, except at our supermax
facility where inmates are kept in their cell 23 hours a day. In summer
months, temperatures in these prisons exceed one hundred degrees. It is a
stark and dreary existence. They can think about their crimes. Life without
parole has even, at times, been described by prosecutors as a fate worse
than death.
Yesterday, I mentioned a lawsuit in Livingston County where a judge ruled
the state corrections department cannot force feed two corrections inmates
who are on a hunger strike. The judge ruled that suicide by hunger strike
was not an irrational action by the inmates, given what their future holds.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional
and cruel and unusual punishment to execute the mentally retarded. It is
now the law of the land. How many people have we already executed who were
mentally retarded and are now dead and buried? Although we now know that
they have been killed by the state unconstitutionally and illegally. Is
that fair? Is that right?
This court decision was last spring. The General Assembly failed to pass
any measure defining what constitutes mental retardation. We are a
rudderless ship because they failed to act.
This is even after the Illinois Supreme Court also told lawmakers that it
is their job and it must be done.
I started with this issue concerned about innocence. But once I studied,
once I pondered what had become of our justice system, I came to care above
all about fairness. Fairness is fundamental to the American system of
justice and our way of life.
The facts I have seen in reviewing each and every one of these cases raised
questions not only about the innocence of people on death row, but about
the fairness of the death penalty system as a whole.
If the system was making so many errors in determining whether someone was
guilty in the first place, how fairly and accurately was it determining
which guilty defendants deserved to live and which deserved to die? What
effect was race having? What effect was poverty having?
And in almost every one of the exonerated 17, we not only have breakdowns
in the system with police, prosecutors and judges, we have terrible cases
of shabby defense lawyers. There is just no way to sugar coat it. There are
defense attorneys that did not consult with their clients, did not
investigate the case and were completely unqualified to handle complex
death penalty cases. They often didn't put much effort into fighting a
death sentence. If your life is on the line, your lawyer ought to be
fighting for you. As I have said before, there is more than enough blame to
go around.
I had more questions.
In Illinois, I have learned, we have 102 decision makers. Each of them are
politically elected, each beholden to the demands of their community and,
in some cases, to the media or especially vocal victims' families. In cases
that have the attention of the media and the public, are decisions to seek
the death penalty more likely to occur? What standards are these
prosecutors using?
Some people have assailed my power to commute sentences, a power that
literally hundreds of legal scholars from across the country have defended.
But prosecutors in Illinois have the ultimate commutation power, a power
that is exercised every day. They decide who will be subject to the death
penalty, who will get a plea deal or even who may get a complete pass on
prosecution. By what objective standards do they make these decisions? We
do not know, they are not public. There were more than 1000 murders last
year in Illinois. There is no doubt that all murders are horrific and
cruel. Yet, less than 2 percent of those murder defendants will receive the
death penalty. That means more than 98% of victims families do not get, and
will not receive whatever satisfaction can be derived from the execution of
the murderer. Moreover, if you look at the cases, as I have done - both
individually and collectively -- a killing with the same circumstances
might get 40 years in one county and death in another county. I have also
seen where co-defendants who are equally or even more culpable get
sentenced to a term of years, while another less culpable defendant ends up
on death row.
In my case-by-case review, I found three people that fell into this
category, Mario Flores, Montel Johnson and William Franklin. Today I have
commuted their sentences to a term of 40 years to bring their sentences
into line with their co-defendants and to reflect the other extraordinary
circumstances of these cases.
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart has said that the imposition of the
death penalty on defendants in this country is as freakish and arbitrary as
who gets hit by a bolt of lightning.
For years the criminal justice system defended and upheld the imposition of
the death penalty for the 17 exonerated inmates from Illinois Death row.
Yet when the real killers are charged, prosecutors have often sought
sentences of less than death. In the Ford Heights Four Case, Verneal
Jimerson and Dennis Williams fought the death sentences imposed upon them
for 18 years before they were exonerated. Later, Cook County prosecutors
sought life in prison for two of the real killers and a sentence of 80
years for a third.
What made the murder for which the Ford Heights Four were sentenced to die
less heinous and worthy of the death penalty twenty years later with a new
set of defendants?
We have come very close to having our state Supreme Court rule our death
penalty statute - the one that I helped enact in 1977 - unconstitutional.
Former State Supreme Court Justice Seymour Simon wrote to me that it was
only happenstance that our statute was not struck down by the state's high
court. When he joined the bench in 1980, three other justices had already
said Illinois' death penalty was unconstitutional. But they got cold feet
when a case came along to revisit the question. One judge wrote that he
wanted to wait and see if the Supreme Court of the United States would rule
on the constitutionality of the new Illinois law. Another said precedent
required him to follow the old state Supreme Court ruling with which he
disagreed.
Even a pharmacist knows that doesn't make sense. We wouldn't have a death
penalty today, and we all wouldn't be struggling with this issue, if those
votes had been different. How arbitrary.
Several years after we enacted our death penalty statute, Girvies Davis was
executed. Justice Simon writes that he was executed because of this
unconstitutional aspect of the Illinois law -- the wide latitude that each
Illinois State's Attorney has to determine what cases qualify for the death
penalty. One State's Attorney waived his request for the death sentence
when Davis' first sentencing was sent back to the trial court for a new
sentencing hearing. The prosecutor was going to seek a life sentence. But
in the interim, a new State's Attorney took office and changed directions.
He once again sought and secured a death sentence. Davies was executed.
How fair is that?
After the flaws in our system were exposed, the Supreme Court of Illinois
took it upon itself to begin to reform its' rules and improve the trial of
capital cases. It changed the rule to require that State's Attorney's give
advance notice to defendants that they plan to seek the death penalty to
require notice before trial instead of after conviction. The Supreme Court
also enacted new discovery rules designed to prevent trials by ambush and
to allow for better investigation of cases from the beginning.
But shouldn't that mean if you were tried or sentenced before the rules
changed, you ought to get a new trial or sentencing with the new safeguards
of the rules? This issue has divided our Supreme Court, some saying yes, a
majority saying no. These justices have a lifetime of experience with the
criminal justice system and it concerns me that these great minds so
strenuously differ on an issue of such importance, especially where life or
death hangs in the balance.
What are we to make of the studies that showed that more than 50% of
Illinois jurors could not understand the confusing and obscure sentencing
instructions that were being used? What effect did that problem have on the
trustworthiness of death sentences? A review of the cases shows that often
even the lawyers and judges are confused about the instructions - let alone
the jurors sitting in judgment. Cases still come before the Supreme Court
with arguments about whether the jury instructions were proper.
I spent a good deal of time reviewing these death row cases. My staff, many
of whom are lawyers, spent busy days and many sleepless nights answering my
questions, providing me with information, giving me advice. It became clear
to me that whatever decision I made, I would be criticized. It also became
clear to me that it was impossible to make reliable choices about whether
our capital punishment system had really done its job.
As I came closer to my decision, I knew that I was going to have to face
the question of whether I believed so completely in the choice I wanted to
make that I could face the prospect of even commuting the death sentence of
Daniel Edwards - the man who had killed a close family friend of mine. I
discussed it with my wife, Lura Lynn, who has stood by me all these years.
She was angry and disappointed at my decision like many of the families of
other victims will be.
I was struck by the anger of the families of murder victims. To a family
they talked about closure. They pleaded with me to allow the state to kill
an inmate in its name to provide the families with closure. But is that the
purpose of capital punishment? Is it to soothe the families? And is that
truly what the families experience.
I cannot imagine losing a family member to murder. Nor can I imagine
spending every waking day for 20 years with a single minded focus to
execute the killer. The system of death in Illinois is so unsure that it is
not unusual for cases to take 20 years before they are resolved. And thank
God. If it had moved any faster, then Anthony Porter, the Ford Heights
Four, Ronald Jones, Madison Hobley and the other innocent men we've
exonerated might be dead and buried.
But it is cruel and unusual punishment for family members to go through
this pain, this legal limbo for 20 years. Perhaps it would be less cruel if
we sentenced the killers to TAMS to life, and used our resources to better
serve victims.
My heart ached when I heard one grandmother who lost children in an arson
fire. She said she could not afford proper grave markers for her
grandchildren who died. Why can't the state help families provide a proper
burial?
Another crime victim came to our family meetings. He believes an inmate
sent to death row for another crime also shot and paralyzed him. The inmate
he says gets free health care while the victim is struggling to pay his
substantial medical bills and, as a result, he has forgone getting proper
medical care to alleviate the physical pain he endures.
What kind of victims 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.
President Lincoln often talked of binding up wounds as he sought to
preserve the Union. "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be
enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of
affection."
I have had to consider not only the horrible nature of the crimes that put
men on death row in the first place, the terrible suffering of the
surviving family members of the victims, the despair of the family members
of the inmates, but I have also had to watch in frustration as members of
the Illinois General Assembly failed to pass even one substantive death
penalty reform. Not one. They couldn't even agree on ONE. How much more
evidence is needed before the General Assembly will take its responsibility
in this area seriously?
The fact is that the failure of the General Assembly to act is merely a
symptom of the larger problem. Many people express the desire to have
capital punishment. Few, however, seem prepared to address the tough
questions that arise when the system fails. It is easier and more
comfortable for politicians to be tough on crime and support the death
penalty. It wins votes. But when it comes to admitting that we have a
problem, most run for cover. Prosecutors across our state continue to deny
that our death penalty system is broken - or they say if there is a
problem, it is really a small one and we can fix it somehow. It is
difficult to see how the system can be fixed when not a single one of the
reforms proposed by my Capital Punishment Commission has been adopted. Even
the reforms the prosecutors agree with haven't been adopted.
So when will the system be fixed? How much more risk can we afford? Will we
actually have to execute an innocent person before the tragedy that is our
capital punishment system in Illinois is really understood? This summer, a
United States District court judge held the federal death penalty was
unconstitutional and noted that with the number of recent exonerations
based on DNA and new scientific technology we undoubtedly executed innocent
people before this technology emerged.
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. Could I take the
chance that our capital punishment system might be reformed, that wrongful
convictions might not occur, that enterprising journalism students might
free more men from death row? A system that's so fragile that it depends on
young journalism students is seriously flawed.
"There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is
nothing good in war. Except its ending."
That's what Abraham Lincoln said about the bloody war between the states.
It was a war fought to end the sorriest chapter in American history--the
institution of slavery. While we are not in a civil war now, we are facing
what is shaping up to be one of the great civil rights struggles of our
time. 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.
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.
This week, Mamie Till died. Her son Emmett was lynched in Mississippi in
the 1950s. She was a strong advocate for civil rights and reconciliation.
In fact just three weeks ago, she was the keynote speaker at the Murder
Victims' Families for Reconciliation Event in Chicago. This group, many of
whom I've met, opposes the death penalty even though their family members
have been lost to senseless killing. Mamie's strength and grace not only
ignited the civil rights movement--including inspiring Rosa Parks to refuse
to go to the back of the bus--but inspired murder victims' families until
her dying day.
Is our system fair to all? Is justice blind? These are important human
rights issues.
Another issue that came up in my individual, case-by-case review was the
issue of international law. The Vienna Convention protects U.S. citizens
abroad and foreign nationals in the United States. It provides that if you
arrested, you should be afforded the opportunity to contact your consulate.
There are five men on death row who were denied that internationally
recognized human right. Mexico's President Vicente Fox contacted me to
express his deep concern for the Vienna Convention violations. If we do not
uphold international law here, we cannot expect our citizens to be
protected outside the United States.
My Commission recommended the Supreme Court conduct a proportionality
review of our system in Illinois. While our appellate courts perform a case
by case review of the appellate record, they have not done such a big
picture study. Instead, we tinker with a case-by-case review as each appeal
lands on their docket.
In 1994, near the end of his distinguished career on the Supreme Court of
the United States, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote an influential dissent in
the body of law on capital punishment. 20 years earlier he was part of the
court that issued the landmark Furman decision. The Court decided that the
death penalty statutes in use throughout the country were fraught with
severe flaws that rendered them unconstitutional. Quite frankly, they were
the same problems we see here in Illinois. To many, it looked liked the
Furman decision meant the end of the death penalty in the United States.
This was not the case. Many states responded to Furman by developing and
enacting new and improved death penalty statutes. In 1976, four years after
it had decided Furman, Justice Blackmun joined the majority of the United
States Supreme Court in deciding to give the States a chance with these new
and improved death penalty statutes. There was great optimism in the air.
This was the climate in 1977, when the Illinois legislature was faced with
the momentous decision of whether to reinstate the death penalty in
Illinois. I was a member of the General Assembly at that time and when I
pushed the green button in favor of reinstating the death penalty in this
great State, I did so with the belief that whatever problems had plagued
the capital punishment system in the past were now being cured. I am sure
that most of my colleagues who voted with me that day shared that view.
But 20 years later, after affirming hundreds of death penalty decisions,
Justice Blackmun came to the realization, in the twilight of his
distinguished career that the death penalty remains fraught with
arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake." He expressed
frustration with a 20-year struggle to develop procedural and substantive
safeguards. In a now famous dissent he wrote in 1994, " From this day
forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."
One of the few disappointments of my legislative and executive career is
that the General Assembly failed to work with me to reform our deeply
flawed system.
I don't know why legislators could not heed the rising voices of reform. I
don't know how many more systemic flaws we needed to uncover before they
would be spurred to action.
Three times I proposed reforming the system with a package that would
restrict the use of jailhouse snitches, create a statewide panel to
determine death eligible cases, and reduce the number of crimes eligible
for death. These reforms would not have created a perfect system, but they
would have dramatically reduced the chance for error in the administration
of the ultimate penalty.
The Governor has the constitutional role in our state of acting in the
interest of justice and fairness. Our state constitution provides broad
power to the Governor to issue reprieves, pardons and commutations. Our
Supreme Court has reminded inmates petitioning them that the last resort
for relief is the governor.
At times the executive clemency power has perhaps been a crutch for courts
to avoid making the kind of major change that I believe our system needs.
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.
I cannot say it more eloquently than Justice Blackmun.
The legislature couldn't reform it.
Lawmakers won't repeal it.
But I will not stand for it.
I must act.
Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error, error in determining
guilt, and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die.
Because of all of these reasons today I am commuting the sentences of all
death row inmates.
This is a blanket commutation. I realize it will draw ridicule, scorn and
anger from many who oppose this decision. They will say I am usurping the
decisions of judges and juries and state legislators. But as I have said,
the people of our state have vested in me to act in the interest of
justice. Even if the exercise of my power becomes my burden I will bear it.
Our constitution compels it. I sought this office, and even in my final
days of holding it I cannot shrink from the obligations to justice and
fairness that it demands.
There have been many nights where my staff and I have been deprived of
sleep in order to conduct our exhaustive review of the system. But I can
tell you this: I will sleep well knowing I made the right decision.
As I said when I declared the moratorium, it is time for a rational
discussion on the death penalty. While our experience in Illinois has
indeed sparked a debate, we have fallen short of a rational discussion. Yet
if I did not take this action, I feared that there would be no
comprehensive and thorough inquiry into the guilt of the individuals on
death row or of the fairness of the sentences applied.
To say it plainly one more time- the Illinois capital punishment system is
broken. It has taken innocent men to a hair's breadth escape from their
unjust execution. Legislatures past have refused to fix it. Our new
legislature and our new Governor must act to rid our state of the shame of
threatening the innocent with execution and the guilty with unfairness.
In the days ahead, I will pray that we can open our hearts and provide
something for victims' families other than the hope of revenge. Lincoln
once said: " I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict
justice." I can only hope that will be so. God bless you. And God bless the
people of Illinois.
|
