Yesterday, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill to abolish the death penalty in that state. In order for the bill to become law, the governor must sign it. The bill now sits on Governor Pat Quinn’s desk, and he has said that he does not yet know what he will do.
Illinois has been a leader in the death penalty debate in recent years, so it will be interesting to see if the governor has the courage to accept the role in abolishing the death penalty. After several Illinois death row inmates were found to be innocent in the 1990s, then-Gov. George Ryan ordered a commission to review the criminal justice system and he ultimately commuted the sentences of everyone on Illinois’s death row. The results from the commission, and studies by other states inspired by Illinois, in effect, found that there are so many flaws in the criminal justice system, that we can never be sure that we will not execute an innocent person.
Fifteen states and the District of Columbia do not have the death penalty, and there has been a strong worldwide trend for decades to get rid of the death penalty. Yet, when we hear about a violent crime, like the recent tragic shootings in Arizona, our first reaction is to reach for the lethal injection needle. That quest for revenge is normal and human, but it is also normal and human to act out of rational thought instead of anger. And rational thought and experience tell us that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison, ineffective, racist, inaccurate, and discriminates against the poor.
Steve Earle touches on several of these themes in his excellent song, “Billy Austin.” The stark tale is narrated by a death row inmate who is part Native American. He does not claim to be innocent, and he describes committing a murder during a filling station robbery. The song then addresses the trial, referencing the poor representation often given to those charged with capital crimes. Earle seems to be telling us that the death penalty is not given based on the worst crimes, it is given based on what happens in a courtroom.
But my trial was over quickly
And then the long hard wait began
Court appointed lawyer
Couldn’t look me in the eye
He just stood up and closed his briefcase
When they sentenced me to die
The narrator then describes the wait on death row, touching on the racism in the system.
I ain’t about to tell you
That I don’t deserve to die
But there’s twenty-seven men here
Mostly black, brown and poor
Most of em are guilty
Who are you to say for sure?
And the song ends with another question.
Could you take that long walk with me
Knowing hell is waitin’ there
Could you pull that switch yourself sir
With a sure and steady hand
Could you still tell yourself
That you’re better than I am.
And those are the questions that face Gov. Quinn. If he does not sign the bill, he will be the one pulling the switch on everyone executed in Illinois from this day forward. And that is a heavy responsibility to bear. Because the death penalty ultimately is not about the person being killed, it is about who we are.
Bonus Governors’ Dilemmas in Other States: In the past week, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen granted clemency to men on death row. Meanwhile, also in the last week, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter granted a posthumous pardon to Joe Arridy, who was executed in 1936, because evidence now shows Arridy was innocent.
Bonus Discussion of Another Steve Earle Song on the Death Penalty: Justice Stevens and Steve Earle’s “Ellis Unit One.”
(Related Posts)
I don’t know that it’s normal and human to act out of rational thought instead of anger. I would agree that, generally, it’s aspirational but I don’t know if I agree with normal and human. . . that’s why you have to do the work that you do–to convince normal human beings to act rationally!
I think this discussion is mixing forks with the spoons.
It is one thing to say that the death penalty should be abolished. I agree. It should forever be abolished. Everywhere.
It’s another thing to say that the reason it should be abolished is that killing another person, no matter how horrible that person is, can never be the right answer. I have never seen any good argument for this point.
So, instead of using the word “rational” or “logical,” I would prefer that we all consider the use of the word “impractical” when describing the reason why we must abolish the death penalty. It is impractical because of the racism, sexism, class sensitivity, and legal mistakes that send so may innocents to die.
If I hear somebody say that nobody should die because of their religious beliefs again…..or that it’s just wrong…with no ethical or philosophical argument, why, why……I’m gonna kill somebody!
Martin, I like the fork and spoon analogy. I’ve never heard that before. But it is funny how you say that one should not make a religious, ethical, or philosophical argument against executing criminals. In the first paragraph you imply that based on your own religious, ethical, and/or philosophical views that it is the right answer in some circumstances to kill criminals, and that you are just against it for practical reasons. So you start with your own religious, ethical and/or philosophical position.
I think you misunderstand me. I really don’t have an organized view on the ethics of a perfectly applied justice system that allows the death penalty. I’m a bit lost. I certainly think about it. I don’t have a strong preconceived idea religious or otherwise.
But I reject the as specious any argument that killing another is always bad because of a religiously held belief or otherwise unsupported presupposition like “all life is precious.” All life is certainly not precious.
That is not to say that those ideas are always incorrect. I hope I would embrace them when they are adequately supported. So far, I’ve not heard good arguments for them. When death penalty issues are discussed in a thoughtful manner, as they are on this blog, we need to be courageous enough to look at the bottom of the issues. How do we go about living in a compassionate, forgiving, just, caring manner?
Like I said before, I recognize the limitations of practical legal exigencies. The death penalty is no good for any society I’ve ever heard of. My curiosity is in the ethics of the death penalty applied with no prejudice or error. And I have a reason for this.
If we can show that the death penalty is unwise in even a perfect world, the argument to abolish it will gain traction. And even if we end up showing the opposite, we can add to our credibility in acknowledging these discoveries while still maintaining our view that the death penalty should be abolished.
As for now, the death penalty discussion seems so superficial, always dancing on top of the real issues of right and wrong. I see real intelligence in the views of both sides as well as supreme ignorance. If this discussion is ever going to be elevated to a level where it actually becomes useful, it needs to explore the deeper often subjective issues of right and wrong. Even if these issues are not resolvable in a society with many opinions, there is much to be gained by mapping out the argument to the point where it can be taken no further.
I don’t think were near that point.
C’mon Quinn- Have the decency to end the state sponsored terrorism of the death penalty. When the government puts someone to death , we the tax payers and voters are responsible for this murder.
It’s embarrassing to live in a country that allows the death penalty.
Yes, I live in Illinois- Go Illini!