It’s easy to see why some are drawn to the satisfying simplicity of eye-for-an-eye justice—especially when crimes are so horrendous that all the jail time in the world would pale in comparison. But the debate, deliberation, and ultimate decision in Illinois concludes that its criminal justice system simply endangers too many innocent lives to be trusted with this option.
Trace the history of U.S. death penalty laws and you’ll observe a trend that shifts in and out of fashion—a change in philosophy, circumstance, or leadership from one era to the next inevitably affects legislation. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that capital punishment was applied arbitrarily and with a distinct racial bias, and outlawed the practice. Just a few years later, the nation’s highest court placed the death penalty option back on the table.
Last week Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn abolished the state’s death penalty, making the land of Lincoln the 16th state to ban capital punishment. But this decision wasn’t based upon a flimsy moral argument during a particularly liberal administration, and it was hardly hasty. Instead, the ban was the result of decades of incriminating evidence pointing to a deeply flawed system that has sent at least 20 innocent individuals to death row.
In the years since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois, investigators have uncovered a wealth of problems within the administration of state capital punishment, prompting former Gov. George Ryan—a previous supporter of the death penalty—to declare a moratorium on executions 11 years ago.
Ryan’s decision was inspired in part by the first National Conference on Wrongful Convictions in 1998. The event featured a 30-member panel of the nation’s nearly 120 inmates who had served long years on death row and were later found innocent. The conference called attention to the mistakes and abuse found in capital punishment systems throughout the country.
There are many stories of broken justice, but perhaps the best example for highlighting these issues can be seen in the case of Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez.
These men each spent over a decade on death row for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence of their innocence, a DNA test, and a confession from repeat murderer and sex-offender Brian Dugan that he alone committed the crime, prosecutors still refused to relinquish their attack on the Hispanic men. The Chicago Tribune suggested that DuPage county law enforcement seemed more interested in protecting reputations than ensuring that justice was served.
In the end, four sheriff’s deputies and three prosecutors were indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice because they concealed key evidence and presented false testimony. As in similar cases, these individuals were never convicted. In fact, the DuPage Seven, as the group became known, advanced to positions of greater authority following the trial—with one becoming a congressman just a few years later. Nevertheless, the case helped shine a light on the rampant prosecutorial abuse found throughout the country.
Over the past decade, the trend toward ending the death penalty has grown strong around the world, and some believe that the thorough debate and examination in Illinois will lead to other states rethinking their capital punishment laws.
The United States remains the only country in the world with a representative government that continues to use the death penalty. America executed nearly 1,200 people since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment over 30 years ago. According to Amnesty International, the United States is among the world’s top five annual executors—a group that includes Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and China.
I applaud Gov. Quinn for making the right decision, but the majority of praise should go to the tireless investigators who fought to expose the fatal flaws of a system that once held the ultimate power. Their work brought about the undeniable case for abolition.
Hopefully, this decision will go on to represent the beginning of a larger conversation. Now that the state thoroughly acknowledges the problems that led to ending capital punishment, perhaps we can address why the criminal justice system routinely finds itself at odds with justice.
