Sunday, November 11, 2007

Bill Moyers Talks with Thomas Cahill


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11092007/watch2.html


Bill Moyers Talks with Thomas Cahill

BILL MOYERS: I'll introduce you now to someone I've long wanted you to know. He's steeped himself in thousands of years of history trying to figure out who we are in the 21st century.

His name is Thomas Cahill. Much of the year Thomas Cahill lives and works here in New York City where he was born to Irish-American parentsgraduated from Fordham University with degrees in classical literature and philosophyand went on to immerse himself in Hebrew and Greek, scripture and theology, film and drama.

In 1995 he published the first of a series of best-selling books on the "hinges of history." Pivotal moments and people in the rise of western culture: HOW THE IRISH SAVED CIVILIZATION, THE GIFT OF THE JEWS, DESIRE OF THE EVERLASTING HILLS (The World Before And After Jesus), WHY THE GREEKS MATTER and his most recent, MYSTERIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

But right now Thomas Cahill has stepped out of the distant past and is writing a book about the death penalty. There are 3350 people on death row in America, and the debate over their fate is back in the news.

SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: People are not close, they're kept away from seeing it

BILL MOYERS: Last week, Sister Helen Prejean, who wrote the best-selling book DEAD MAN WALKING and filmmaker Mario Marazziti of Italy, presented the President of the General Assembly with five million signatures calling for an end to the death penalty. And Amnesty International urged the UN to pass a resolution for a moratorium on capital punishment declaring that it 'has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.'

Not so, said this op-ed on the editorial page of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, arguing that 'capital punishment works.'

The American Bar Association has also called for a moratorium on capital punishment. And last Tuesday, just moments before a prisoner in Mississippi was scheduled to die by lethal injection the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution.

Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 1099 people have been executed. Texas leads the waywith 405 — four times the nearest state.

One of those executed in Texas was Dominique Green — put to death three years ago by lethal injection.

NEWS ANCHOR: Inside the Walls Unit, the execution started. Outside, the victims son...

BILL MOYERS: It was a big story on local news.

NEWS ANCHOR: Green was executed after a last minute ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

NEWS ANCHOR: When he was sentenced to death for robbing and killing a man in a Houston store.

BILL MOYERS: During his stay on death row Dominique Green had written a letter to a newspaper in Italy, asking for help. Because of Italy's opposition to the death penalty, the Roman Coliseum is lit up when a death sentence is commuted somewhere in the world or when a country abolishes capital punishment.

Across the Tiber River from the Coliseum is an international community of social justice known as Sant'Egidio, in the very neighborhood where Tom Cahill and his wife Susan live when they're not in New York. And that's how Cahill heard of Dominique Green.

Here in the states he arranged for his friend Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa to visit Green at the prison in Texas. They talked for two hours in private and Tutu then issued a plea in behalf of Green, calling the death penalty 'an absurdity that brutalizes society.' It didn't matter. Domninique Green was put to death at 7:59 p.m. On October 26, 2004.

Dominique Green is the subject of Thomas Cahill's next book. Cahill's work chronicling the roots of western civilization is a pageant of events and personalities. But right now he is absorbed with the story of one man's life and death. Welcome to THE JOURNAL.

BILL MOYERS: Tom Cahill, thanks for joining me on the JOURNAL.

THOMAS CAHILL: Bill, it's always a pleasure to be invited.

BILL MOYERS: Tell me, what was Dominique Green's story? Where did he come from and where did he wind up?

THOMAS CAHILL: He came from an alcoholic drug-using household. He was sexually abused several times. He was put in juvenile homes. He was-- just about everything that could be done to him that anyone could imagine being done to a child, was done to him. When it says in the Old Testament that the sins of the fathers will be visited on the children into the third and fourth generation, I think that's correct, that these terrible things that go on in families go from one generation to another to another.

BILL MOYERS: So, what happened on the night that he wound up being accused of murder?

THOMAS CAHILL: They were robbing people in a number of different situations--

BILL MOYERS: He and a group of kids?

THOMAS CAHILL: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: And there are people in Texas who swear that Dominique Green pulled the trigger that killed the man for whom he was convicted of murdering.

THOMAS CAHILL: Right. But what actually happened was-- and it's in an instance of how badly this is done in Texas, there were four kids. One of them was white. He was not charged with anything. Ever. And you cannot interview him til this day.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

THOMAS CAHILL: You can't find him. But he exists. I know his name. And the other three were black. Dominique was the youngest. And the two others turned against him to get lighter sentences, it looks to me. And they decided that he would take the rap. He was certainly guilty of robbery. I don't think he was guilty of murder. But even if he was, I don't think that's not what I see in this. What I see in this is that we as a country are actually sacrificing children to an evil God, to the God of whatever this justice is that we-- instead of take-- instead of doing something for Dominique Green who grew up without the aid of civilization, we condemn him to death, and to the torture of 11 years on death row.

There was a trial. There was very bad representation. The judge that Dominique came up before was the same judge who in a slightly earlier appeal had been asked to reverse a decision because the lawyer who represented this kid in this earlier trial, had slept throughout the trial. And everyone had seen that and everyone knew about it. And the judge, in his decision, said, "The Constitution gives you the right to a lawyer. It doesn't say whether he has to be awake or not." So, I mean, this sort of-- there is, I think throughout the country but especially in the state of Texas, there is a kind of collusion among lawyers whether they're prosecutors or defenders, and judges, and an awful lot of horrible things happen in order to get as many people as possible executed.

BILL MOYERS: But there is the question of a crime and of justice as some people see it.

THOMAS CAHILL: The crime is secondary. Crime is secondary. There are no millionaires on death row nor will there ever be. Almost everyone on death row is poor. And do you really think that no millionaire ever committed a capital crime?

BILL MOYERS: So what are you saying?

THOMAS CAHILL: I'm saying that there are certain people in our society that we are willing to offer up. And not others. And they're the people who have no power. We're not killing Dominique Green because he committed murder. We're killing Dominique Green because we want to kill somebody.

BILL MOYERS: How do you deal with people who say what would Tom Cahill write if he were part of the family of someone who'd been killed by someone on death row?

THOMAS CAHILL: I understand very much the feeling of somebody who has lost a person through murder. I understand very much why they would not necessarily be willing to sign on to Texans Against the Death Penalty or any other such organization. But however difficult it may be the only way you are going to gain closure is to let go of your hatred. Holding on to it is never going to get you out of it. It's never going to get you out of the bind, the knot that you're in. I don't see how it can. The widow of Andrew Lastrapes, the man who was killed in the incident for which Dominique was executed said to me, "Of course, I forgive Dominique. And I forgive them all."

And I said, "How do you do that?" And she said, "Isn't that what we're supposed to do?" She's an extremely bright but simple woman. But she had no doubts about where her values lay. That doesn't mean that I would be able to say that if such a thing had just happened to me. I understand very much the rage, all right. I'm full of rages myself, you know.

BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that most of the democratic world has given up capital punishment? You know, there's a new movement internationally to ban it.

THOMAS CAHILL: And that's true. Throughout Italy, when we-- though it doesn't happen here, you won't see the name in the New York Times, when we-- you may see it on a back page. But when we actually execute someone, it's front-page news throughout Italy.

BILL MOYERS: Why is that?

THOMAS CAHILL: They care deeply about-- because they consider it to be a terrible injustice that people are still being executed. You know, you cannot join the European Union as a country if you execute people

BILL MOYERS: Have you seen those photographs of the Iranian hoisting their targeted prisoners up on a crane while thousands of men and women shout, "God is great-- God is great." What does that mean?

THOMAS CAHILL: Well, it wasn't all that long ago that we did things like that. Now we execute in private or, you know, out of the public square. But, it wasn't all that long ago that in the west, we were executing publicly and people would come. It was a big deal. They'd bring a picnic lunch and sit there with their children and watch some guy be strung up. I mean, how long ago was that?

BILL MOYERS: The Taliban do it. Al-Qaeda does it. The IRA in Ireland did it. Bin Laden says that chopping off heads is a justified form of punishment. And what does it say that violent death becomes a policy option? That in the name of life, we take life. What does that say to you?

THOMAS CAHILL: I think that there are many things within the human soul or within the human character that we ignore. There's a tendency to violence in all of us. There's even, I believe, a prehistoric desire for human sacrifice. We see it in all ancient cultures. I refer to it in how the Irish saved civilization. The Irish knew-- the Irish sacrificed children and-- victims of war and all that sort of stuff before Christianity came in. The Jews seemed to have been doing it in the time of Genesis when so many anthropologists believe that the aqedah — the near sacrifice of Isaac — is an example of the Jews finally rejecting human sacrifice.

BILL MOYERS: Is the death penalty important for historians looking at civilization as you have done? Does it tell you something that you wouldn't get anywhere else?

THOMAS CAHILL: Well, getting rid of it is a very new phenomenon. You know, it wasn't very long ago that all civil-- all societies had the death penalty. So, it's a little early to say how important it's going to be. I mean, a historian really wants a few hundred years to elapse before he makes a statement about anything. But I think it will be important. I think it's among the touchstones-- right now of where different societies are going. The crueler societies, China, Saudi Arabia, the United States support the death penalty. The easier, more open, more generous societies, like Western Europe do not.

BILL MOYERS: And yet that's the continent that was ravaged by one war after another for so long.

THOMAS CAHILL: They finally learned something. I really do believe that that — thanks especially to what happened in the First and Second World Wars in which they behaved abominably they learned that it was time not to do that anymore. And that's basically what at the end of the 17th century the original Anabaptists were doing. The people who became the Quakers and the--

BILL MOYERS: Mennonites--

THOMAS CAHILL: Mennonites--

BILL MOYERS: And the Amish and all of those.

THOMAS CAHILL: You know? They were saying, "No, no, this is--" they were the first people against capital punishment. They were the very first people to oppose it and to try to reform prisons so that they would not simply be places where people were punished. They were to be put in penitentiaries. Places where people could repent.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Penitence was to--

THOMAS CAHILL: Yeah!

BILL MOYERS: ...happen there. As you say happened in the case-- you really believe it happened in the case of Dominique Green.

THOMAS CAHILL: Oh, yeah, yeah. Very much.

THOMAS CAHILL: I mean, a man who goes up and down death row and gets everybody to forgive and be forgiven is not a-- is not somebody we have to be afraid of.

BILL MOYERS: Dominique Green requested that he be cremated and that the ashes placed in that marvelous church Santa Maria Church in the district of Rome, where you and your wife have a second home. Did that happen?

THOMAS CAHILL: Yes, he could not be buried within the Basilica of Santa Maria, itself, because of laws against interment within those churches that are secular laws of the Italian state. But, he has been interred in a beautiful anteroom within the Piazza of Santa Maria. That's where he is. He wanted to be taken out of Livingston. And well, he actually would have been buried not in Livingston. But in Huntsville. The death row is in Livingston. But, the night before their executions, they are brought to Huntsville. And there's an enormous burial ground there. It goes on for miles.

BILL MOYERS: We were in Rome in the spring. We were in your neighborhood. But we also went over to the Coliseum where the lions used to tear the gladiators to shreds. And you can't help but think about how this cockpit of cruelty has become one of the world's great tourist attractions. Now, what does that say to you?

THOMAS CAHILL: Yeah, well, it says something that we don't, again, want to look at. But-- you know, it is the single largest monument to human cruelty in the world, the Coliseum. Now the Coliseum is on the list of the seven wonders of the world, the new seven wonders.

BILL MOYERS: What is it? Help me understand that psychology.

THOMAS CAHILL: Why have there been so many movies about Romans sitting in the Coliseum going like that? We get a kick out of it. The real evil in the world, it seems to me, is cruelty. That's-- to me the word evil equals cruelty. It's human cruelty that is evil. And you-- we all have to deal with that. We all have a tendency to that that we're not willing — we're not willing to acknowledge that this is inside of us. It's there.

BILL MOYERS: You write in the beginning of Desire of the Everlasting Hills, quote, "The history of the world, like the history of its hills is written in blood, has there ever been any period when that wasn't so that you've studied?

THOMAS CAHILL: There are times, I think, when that does happen. There are-- it's hard to find in Greco-Roman civilization. But you find it, for instance, in the communities set up by Francis of Assisi. You find it in among the Quakers. Now none of those people have been able to transform whole societies. But they did create a moment-- what I would think of as a Shangri-La moment.

BILL MOYERS: What's their characteristic? What do they share in common?

THOMAS CAHILL: People who were able to, I think, recognize what human cruelty is about and renounce it. It doesn't really matter whether they said explicitly, "I renounce human cruelty." What was was important is that they begin to treat one another-- Francis of Assisi said that the best thing you can do to any other person is to say to him or her, "May the lord give you peace. And that's how we should go about our business. May the lord give you peace." Well, that all-- that already puts you in a completely different mindset it seems to me. And he said, "You do that with everybody." You know, it doesn't matter whether he's a leper or a heretic or a Muslim. May the lord give you peace.

BILL MOYERS: You've studied history enough to know what works for the individual in a small realm of relationship isn't a rule that the nation state can live by is it?

THOMAS CAHILL: I don't think that real civilization ever occurs because of anything that a nation state does. It occurs because of movements within the nation state that are led by sometimes one individual or a series of individuals. Desmond Tutu is an excellent example of that. And in fact, I'll tell you something I've never told anybody before. In each of the books that I've written, I-- when I come upon a great historical figure that I'm trying to deal with I try to think of someone I know who is like that person. And my model for Saint Patrick is Desmond Tutu. Which I think he would be surprised to hear too, but Tutu in South Africa and his wife, who should not be forgotten Leah Tutu and their children, their four children, they live-- the whole time those children were growing up, 25, 30 years, they were under-- they were in danger of being assassinated. The entire time those six people were in danger of death by hatred.

Nelson Mandela is always credited with so much. And I don't mean to take anything away from him. But he was in prison for 27 of those years. He he wasn't on the scene. It was Tutu who was on the scene. It was Tutu who would say-- who would stand up to these horrible South African guards and say, "You don't know what you're talking about. Our God is a God of resurrection. You're not going to do us in." This little guy is five feet four standing up to all the forces of-- that really have-- of cruelty and evil.

BILL MOYERS: So, it's the individual who acts--

THOMAS CAHILL: And his wife and his children--

BILL MOYERS: Well, they--

THOMAS CAHILL: --and Steven Biko and all the different people that were part-- it isn't just one man.

BILL MOYERS: I'm still wrestling with this abrupt change in your subject matter. I mean, isn't the story of Dominique Green, one individual executed for a crime way off your beaten path?

THOMAS CAHILL: Yes, it is different from what I've been doing for sure. But I don't think that ...well, why am I doing the Hinges of History? What I'm really interested in is what makes for civilization and what does not. So, the people that I'm looking for in the series asks the question, how did we become the people that we are? And why do we think the way we do and feel the way we do and perceive the way we do?

But underneath that, what I'm really interested in, is what's good about us. What do we do that's good? I started with HOW THE IRISH SAVED CIVILIZATION which is not the beginning of western history by any means for a reason. It was the simplest book-- simplest story that I had to tell. And it was about this guy named Patrick who had been a Roman citizen on the Island of Britain who was kidnapped at the age of 16 and taken to Ireland and made into a slave for six years after which he escaped. Then in middle age he returned to Ireland which was a rough, rough place, not a place anybody would willingly return to. And he came back, at that point, with the gospels. And he became the evangelist of the Irish.

And what he did in doing that which was a great act of generosity because he spent the last 30 years of his life in Ireland-- among these very crazy people who practiced human sacrifice, who had no problem with slavery in its most awful form, who believed in really dark gods. This was quite a group to come and be-- decide to spend your life with willingly. In that great act of generosity he also realized that though he was never going to make them Romans or Athenians, he had to teach them to read and write.

And so he taught them to read and write from these simple little lives of the saints of the period which are really lives of the martyrs. It was the early Roman martyrs. And it was all the terrible things that the Romans had done to the early Christians, you know. They were eaten by lions. They had their eyes plucked out. They had-- you know, they were slowly eviscerated. They were all these different things that had been done to them. Saint Lawrence was burned on a griddle, you know, on one side and then on the other side, all that kind of stuff.

The Irish loved these stories. They thought they were dandy. And the only thing that made them sad was that Christianity came into Ireland without any martyrs. Because the Irish just kind of rolled over and accepted it and said, "Yeah, well this really does...this makes more sense than what we were doing." It was so much more-- it was so superior. But what Patrick also did in teaching them to read and write was they ended up setting themselves the task in the sixth, seventh and eighth century of copying out all of western literature, the whole of the western library which was in danger of extinction at that time because the Germanic barbarians had invaded the Roman Empire and within a century almost no one could read or write. Literacy itself was gone.

BILL MOYERS: So, civilization can be taken away.

THOMAS CAHILL: If there are no books there's no civilization. That's for sure. And that of course, the Germanic barbarians thought that the only thing books were good for was as kindling. They had no other use for it. So, at this period you have these very simple people who had been great warriors and crazy kidnappers and all that sort of stuff sitting down and deciding what they would do is copy out Plato, which, of course, they couldn't understand. But they thought it was important. And they had learned the alphabet. And damn it they were going to do this. It was difficult. And that was one thing that the Irish did like. They liked things that were difficult.

So, they copied out all of Latin and Greek literature. And they added to it in the margins. Because they couldn't understand the Plato very well. And it was kind of hard for the scribe to copy page after page of Plato without understanding it very well. He started doodling in the margins. And that's the beginning of the great books like the Book of Kells, the great decorated books. And you have all these funny little medieval people peeping through in the margins. And then he would sometimes put in little comments or jokes or a little poem that had been part of the repertoire of the wandering bards. And so, that Irish becomes the first vernacular literature to be copied out and written down.

BILL MOYERS: You start that book on the Irish with a chapter on the fall of Rome. What do you think about these analogies between the fall of the Roman Empire and the fall of America? Do you think there's anything to that from your wide sweep of studying history?

THOMAS CAHILL: I would say in some ways yes and in some ways no. You know, there's-- history never repeats itself. That's one thing you can say about it. It never happens again exactly the same way. So, there are tremendous differences. But we can look into the past and learn things. I think, for instance, why did Rome fall? Because of things interior and exterior. The interior part was less and less just taxation. More and more it was the poor and the middle class that bore the burden of taxation. And the wealthy and very wealthy pretended to pay but didn't actually.

And I think we are in a very similar situation with regard to that. Then the other thing was-- the external thing was that you had all of these Germanic barbarians who we think of as marauders and all that. They just wanted in. They were on the wrong side of the river. And they knew it. They wanted to have farms and vineyards like the Romans had. They thought it looked great. They wanted to cross the river. You know, what they were? They were immigrants. That's who they were not at all unlike the situation today at the borders of our country and the borders of Europe.

THOMAS CAHILL: And what happened was despite the unjust taxation or despite-- taxation in any form, the Romans could not pay to keep them out. No matter what they did they couldn't make that border guard and those walls high enough and strong enough to keep out the barbarians. If people really want to get in they're going to find a way in.

BILL MOYERS: How did Christians learn tolerance over time?

THOMAS CAHILL: I think it all has to do with Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries where both sides, both Protestants and Catholics, eliminated one another to their heart's content. I mean, they couldn't have been-- they liked nothing better than a bonfire and putting somebody in the middle of it. And that was happening on both sides. You know, the-- as somebody said at one point, in Papal Rome, there were more heads on the bridge that led out of the Vatican than there were melons in the market. And that was-- but you could have said that about Geneva. You could have said that about London. You could have gone on and on with all of them.

What finally happened with people like Voltaire who were-- at least expressly sort of outside religious circles, they began to say, "Do we really have to keep doing this? Do we really-- is this the only way? You know-- does the religion of the monarch have to be the religion of all his subjects? Is that really necessary?" And the answer they gave was no. And you begin to have enlightened monarchs who say no. You know, we're going to get rid of a few of these disabilities here, you know. But that's the beginning of steps being taken in a new direction until you get the United States of America, the first country on earth in which the-- the-- that is built on tolerance. It starts with tolerance.

BILL MOYERS: Well, unless you were an indigenous American or--

THOMAS CAHILL: You bet.

BILL MOYERS: --Native American or a slave-- or an African brought over-- four million-- several million --

THOMAS CAHILL: Or unless you were even, you know, late 19th century Irish immigrant. So, there are plenty of exceptions. Plenty of things were-- plenty of times where it doesn't work. And yet it's a new idea.

BILL MOYERS: You once said that Christianity's dark history of crusades, inquisitions and pogroms lies not as far in the past as we might prefer to think. Because, going back to the Constitution, you said a country's finally emerged, our own, that officially refused to play the old game of whose religion was true. That America fostered a generously agnostic view of religious truth. You may believe what you like, Tom Cahill. And I may believe as I want. And we don't impose our beliefs on each other. Is that changing?

THOMAS CAHILL: It may be changing somewhat in the face of militant Islam. I think we are going to have to find a way of dealing with Islam that is better than the way that we have constructed so far.

BILL MOYERS: And they with us.

THOMAS CAHILL: Absolutely, absolutely, but we already have gone through that process. It was called the Enlightenment. And the result of the Enlightenment was the American Constitution. We-- that was the process by which we said, "Do we really have to keep killing one another?" No, now the Muslims have not gone through that. And the Sunnis and the Shiites still think that they have to keep killing one another. And God knows that the Wahabis and any number of other sects have-- you know, hate one another with far greater ferocity than they hate us.

Religious history shows you over and over again that you hate most of all the people that are closest to you but just a little bit different. Protestants and Catholics throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, you know, if you were a Martian coming you would have said, "Well, what are they arguing about? What-- they seem to believe the same things more or less. What's the problem here? Why do millions of people have to die?"

You know and as Jonathan Swift said, it was really about how you set an egg on the table, you know, with how you got at the meat of the egg. You know-- some people did it one way and some people did it another. And that was enough reason to kill. And it more or less does come down to that. You know, I mean, there's still plenty of people who feel that way. But we have essentially gotten beyond that. It would be a dreadful tragedy if we fell back into that.

BILL MOYERS: Do you think that what's going on now between the Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq is comparable to what went on between the Catholics and the Protestants in 16th century--

THOMAS CAHILL: It's so parallel it's amazing.

BILL MOYERS: In what sense?

THOMAS CAHILL: Because from our point of view, not being Muslims, we look at them. And we say, "What are they arguing about? What's the big difference between--" you know, well, I can tell you what some of the differences are. And you would begin to lose interest. Anyone would if they weren't Muslim. And the same thing about the differences between Catholics and Protestants. I remember once giving a talk in a church. And a guy stood up and said "Do you believe we are saved by faith alone?" And I said, "Well, I believe we're saved by faith. But I believe with Paul the apostle that we're saved by faith, hope and charity and the greatest of these is love or charity." And he walked out. And he's not going to pay attention -And once I gave the wrong answer-- he was leaving. And he wanted me to know that he-- I had nothing more to say to him.

BILL MOYERS: -- suppose Thomas Cahill is incarnated 1,000 years from now and decides to pick up writing The Hinges of History. What would be the, as of now, the defining characteristic of the American society you would write about in the 20th and 21st century?

THOMAS CAHILL: That all societies have a dream and a nightmare. And our nightmare has been, I think, our racism. We practically committed genocide on the people who were here, the Native Americans. We enslaved another race of people, the Africans. And then we dropped the atom bomb on Asians. We would have never dropped that bomb in Europe in my view. And I think that's what proves the racism of it. That's the nightmare of America.

The dream of America is enunciated by the great speech by Martin Luther King I Have a Dream. The dream is that there is no country on earth that has tried to actually embrace all the people that we have tried to embrace. All you have to do is walk through New York City to see that or any of our cities and not a few of our country sides at this point. We could be called the most racist. Or we could be called the least. We are both. And it always remains a tension and a question as to which side of us, the good side or the bad side, will win out in the end. And I think that's true for every society.

BILL MOYERS: Let me come back to Dominique Green's storyDid you find Dominique Green to have turned that prison cell and death row into a zone of peace?

THOMAS CAHILL: Well, you see in somebody's body and their face and their eyes, in the way they move what they're about. This was somebody who was deeply at peace with himself. Who was perfectly happy to go out toward another person and be in communication, who embraced you with his language if not with his body since he couldn't get through the glass partition.

BILL MOYERS: You've got to help me understand that. Because I'm imagining you seeing him through that glass partition. This is a man everybody down there thinks has killed another man. And something communicates itself to you through that glass partition.

BILL MOYERS: So, what struck you?

THOMAS CAHILL: Instead of talking about himself and --what the poor conditions he had to live in and all the things that I already knew about, he wanted desperately to talk about books and writing. And he had become a great reader in the 11 years that he had been in prison. The book that he had read most recently that he really cared deeply about was Desmond Tutu's book NO FUTURE WITHOUT FORGIVENESS, which is Archbishop Tutu's book about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But what also came out was that even though they're all in solitary confinement and you would think they can't communicate with one another, they manage. Because human beings are incredibly resourceful in situations like this. And Dominique was able to send that book after he had read it, up and down that death row.

BILL MOYERS: Tutu's book?

THOMAS CAHILL: Yeah. And most of the inmates on death row agreed that they had to forgive all the people who had hurt them and ask for forgiveness from all the people that they had hurt if they could, insofar as they could. So, there was this tremendous-- I think you'd have to call it a conversion. That's certainly what it sounds like to me, all these guys on death row that nobody cares about and everybody wants to execute offering forgiveness and asking forgiveness on the basis of a book.

BILL MOYERS: How did that play out practically? I mean, did Dominique Green ever get to communicate that to the families of the victim in that crime?

THOMAS CAHILL: Well, the victim was a man named Andrew Lastrapes, who was I think he was still in his 30s when it happened. And he had two small children — two sons — who became intimate friends of Dominique in his last days. Dominique, of course, you don't have an awful lot of things to give away on death row. Dominique gave Tutu's book to one of the sons of Andrew Lastrapes. And the other son received a rosary that Dominique kept around his neck. And each bead on that rosary was a reminder of one of the people on death row who had been executed before Dominique and who had helped Dominique to become the person he became.

BILL MOYERS: But he was a different man after 11 years from--

THOMAS CAHILL: Well--

BILL MOYERS: --the 19-year-old who was arrested for the killing, right? THOMAS CAHILL You know that was his -- That cell in that prison became the means of his transformation.

BILL MOYERS: Thomas Cahill, thank you for joining me on THE JOURNAL.

THOMAS CAHILL: Thank you, Bill.



Saturday, November 10, 2007

Fighting for his legacy

Fighting for his legacy
POST-DISPATCH SPRINGFIELD BUREAU
11/11/2007
George Ryan
Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan walks out his house in Kankakee, Ill., with friends and relatives to speak with reporters.

OXFORD, Wis. — A day after defiantly proclaiming his innocence, former Illinois Gov. George Ryan's final act as a free man last week was to switch cars en route from Chicago to Wisconsin, then slip in the back way to a federal prison here — thus avoiding a gauntlet of television cameras that waited to record his arrival.

The maneuver left some wondering why he would bother with such stealth at this point. Ryan stands convicted of fleecing his state while holding its highest office. He will probably be in prison until he's at least 79 years old. His political career is, without question, over.

What's a few more unflattering pictures?

The answer may have to do with a subject that clearly has been central in Ryan's mind since long before he was convicted last year: legacy.

"You don't run for elective office if you don't have a significant ego … (and) legacy is important from the standpoint of ego satisfaction," said Mike Lawrence, a former top aide to ex-Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar. "All of them want to be remembered for what they accomplished in public office.

"A picture of a governor going to prison is a lasting impression," added Lawrence, who now heads the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. "It overshadows other things people might remember."

Ryan today is viewed by many of his fellow Illinoisans as a crook who cashed in on his influence from the governor's office. But outside his home state, many see him as a heroic opponent of the death penalty. He has long made it obvious that he cares deeply about which of those two versions of his life gets top billing in the history books.

Even as federal prosecutors were circling at the end of his term as governor, Ryan used his final days in office, in January 2003, to commute the sentence of every inmate on Illinois' death row, making headlines around the world.

By 2005 — as a federal jury was being assembled in Chicago to consider charges that Ryan sold government influence to friends and cronies in exchange for gifts, trips and cash — death-penalty opponents were submitting Ryan's name to officials in Norway seeking to have him considered for the Nobel Peace Prize for his continuing anti-death-penalty work.

Ryan's supporters say his Illinois death penalty moratorium, which still stands, spurred unprecedented national soul-searching about the death penalty, and even paved the way for the U.S. Supreme Court's current review of the constitutionality of lethal injections.

"When you add it all up, it was George Ryan who really opened up this entire debate about the death penalty in America," said Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who is once again submitting Ryan's name for a Nobel Prize. "He's a visionary … but obviously, a lot of the media in this state don't see it that way."

Law professor Andrea Lyon of DePaul University in Chicago was so supportive of Ryan's work against capital punishment that she ended up working with the defense in his corruption trial last year.

"Did he play the political game the way it's played? Yes. Is that always seemly? No," Lyon acknowledged last week.

Even so, and even given the fact that Ryan on Wednesday successfully avoided having his arrival at prison recorded for posterity, his legacy may still be doomed.

"If history is a guide," said Lawrence, "Ryan will be will be remembered as a corrupt politician."

That's the lesson in looking back on figures like Richard Nixon, who opened China to the west but is mostly remembered today for resigning the presidency in disgrace. Or 1960s Illinois Gov. Otto Kerner, whose groundbreaking national work in race relations was overshadowed by his later conviction for taking bribes while in office.

All indications are that Ryan's successor, too, is thinking about the issue of legacy — and, perhaps, looking at last week's events as a cautionary tale.

Like Ryan and his anti-death-penalty crusade, current Gov. Rod Blagojevich has displayed obsession with a potentially historic policy issue (universal health care). And, like Ryan, Blagojevich has seen the public's attention distracted from his official accomplishments because of federal investigators poking around.

Blagojevich friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko has been indicted for allegedly offering to trade state business for campaign contributions to Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors have confirmed they're investigating alleged hiring fraud within the administration, and the feds also reportedly have subpoenaed records from Blagojevich's campaign fund.

Blagojevich has argued that the alleged crimes were isolated incidents by people acting on their own, and not indicative of a wider criminal pall over his administration.

But Ryan, in his last public appearance before becoming inmate No. 16627-424 at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oxford, Wis., appeared less concerned with the 6 1/2 year prison sentence ahead of him than with the image of himself he was leaving behind.

"To the people of Illinois, I'm not blind to the sentiment that some hold," Ryan told reporters Tuesday night outside his Kankakee home, a much better backdrop, legacy-wise, than the minimum-security prison he would virtually sneak into the next day. "But I want you to know that I did my best."

kmcdermott@post-dispatch.com | 217-782-4912

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Bye, George

http://www.suntimes.com:80/news/sneed/638160,CST-NWS-sneed07.article

Bye, George

November 7, 2007

"I'm ready to go," said former Gov. George Ryan, who planned to caravan with his family to the federal prison in Oxford, Wis., today.

"Look, I'm fine. It's the beginning of a journey I hadn't expected, but it isn't over," Ryan told Sneed in an exclusive interview Monday night.

"I was innocent then and I'm innocent now ... and we are still pressing ahead in our legal battle.

"But it certainly has been a 10-year nightmare."

So the man who once wept when he met South African President Nelson Mandela -- but has maintained a dry-eyed stoicism since his conviction on corruption charges -- spent his final night at home, with his wife, Lura Lynn, his extended family . . . and a piece of banana cream pie.

He also got out his favorite pan and warmed up his final meal: tortellini soup prepared by Ryan and his son-in-law a few days before.

"We are going to eat soup and talk over the good times we had as a family at the [governor's] mansion," he told Sneed Monday night.

"My conscience is clear and my family close," Ryan said. "That is what has enabled me to endure and move ahead."

Last Friday night, an excited Ryan and his entire family of 30 quietly headed to a Bulls game at the United Center.

On Sunday, he went to the Asbury Methodist Church in Kankakee, where members of his family filled up four front pews and Ryan addressed the congregation.

"I just want to thank you for all your prayers and support over the years," Ryan said. "Please keep the prayers going for Lura Lynn and myself."

On Monday, the Ryans went out for pizza.

Then -- on Tuesday, Ryan got out his suitcase.

"I'm not taking much," he said. "I can't take much. They'll send back the clothes I'm wearing. I packed medicines, my glasses. But I can't take books or newspapers. That has to be ordered or sent.

"I can't even take pictures along of my family. That has to be sent, too. But I can take my wedding ring."

Married for 51 years to his high school sweetheart courted at a Kankakee drugstore, Ryan initially didn't want wife Lura Lynn to accompany him to prison.

But he yielded to her plea. "I needed to see it. I needed to be there. I needed to know where my husband was going to be living," said Lura Lynn, who will continue to live at their home in Kankakee.

So what has fueled Ryan's stoicism?

"He has six kids and 17 grandchildren and he needs to be strong for them," said a close Ryan friend.

"But he also believes in his innocence, and that results in peace."

A former soldier, Ryan is preparing to enter prison as a boot camp, according to a close friend.

"The rest of us will continue to work on his behalf for his fight against the death penalty," said former Chicago Schools Supt. Joe Hannon, a frequent dinner mate.

"I told him I'd give him a pedometer to stay fit in order to climb the stairs in Stockholm, when he receives the Nobel Peace Prize," added Hannon, a former Marine.

(University of Illinois College of Law Professor Francis Boyle, who has nominated Ryan for the Nobel for his worldwide work speaking out against the death penalty, tells Sneed he is renominating Ryan.)

"You learn in the service, never to leave a wounded comrade on the battlefield," said Hannon. "It is so easy for us to love George. Respect, humor, love, friendship. That's what it's all about."

Former Near North insurance magnate Mickey Segal, who is serving time at Oxford prison, described prison life to Sneed during an interview this summer.

"We eat breakfast at 6:30 a.m., lunch at 10:30 a.m., then dinner at 3:30 p.m. . . . And no cocktails on the veranda," he quipped.

"There are four people in my dorm section. And we are allowed 300 minutes a month in phone calls . . . and allowed attorney calls. There is a no-tolerance policy here. . . . And if you are a problem, you get shipped to another camp.

"They run a good ship here and even have a salad bar, but everybody has a job."

Former Oxford inmate Dan Rostenkowski, former head of the powerful House Ways and Means committee, who was fully pardoned by President Clinton, has talked frequently to Ryan.

"George Ryan is going to stick his nose in books, write his biography and lose weight," said Rosty. "Prison life at Oxford is like an army camp. He'll go through orientation for a month. And they'll assign him a duty."

Duty for Ryan at home is done for now: He finally repaired his broken porch swing and tucked away his cookie sheet.

But he will take something with him. "I was very blessed when Monsignor Ignatius McDermott left a message for me two days before he died that I'd be OK.

"I take that to be a good omen."

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

2 sides to Gov. Ryan


http://www.suntimes.com/news/mcnamee/624955,CST-NWS-mcnamee29.article

2 sides to Gov. Ryan

THE CHICAGO WAY | Why is it so hard to believe he was both sincere about the
death penalty and a crook?

October 29, 2007
BY TOM McNAMEE Sun-Times Columnist

I asked an editor in the Sun-Times newsroom, a guy I respect: What do you
make of George Ryan's moratorium on executions?

"A cynical public relations stunt," he said.

There you go. You hear that a lot.

>From the moment former Gov. Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in
>Illinois, shortly before he left office in 2002, hard-eyed realists across
>the state had laughed off any possibility that his motives were pure, that
>he acted sincerely out of a troubled conscience.

Ryan's conscience wasn't troubled, they said. But Ryan, himself, was in deep
trouble, soon to be indicted for a string of crooked dealings while he was
governor and secretary of state. He seized on the death penalty issue, they
said, in a shameless attempt to divert attention from his legal problems,
and, perhaps, in a bid to salvage his legacy.

To which I've always replied: How boring.

People -- even a by-the-numbers Republican like Ryan -- are so much more
complicated than that.

My own belief is that Ryan was and remains utterly sincere in his opposition
to the death penalty. But whether he knows it or not, he never would have
done the soul-searching to get to that point, or felt the freedom to do
something about it, had U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald not been chasing
him down.
Unseen forces shape us

Why do any of us believe what we believe? It's almost never just a matter of
obvious self-interest.

"There are always analysts who come up with a primitive kind of Marxism, who
say that all we do is governed by rationally calculated self-interest," said
Andreas Glaeser, an associate professor of sociology at the University of
Chicago. "But I find that too primitive. I suspect your hunch is right about
somebody like Ryan. I have met politicians, and I was shocked to see the
human being in front of me."

>From his study of the secret police in formerly communist Eastern European
>countries, Glaeser said, he's found that the beliefs people claim to hold
>are heavily shaped by forces they don't even see.

"You have to look at their social networks," he said. "Their social
contracts, experiences in their jobs, who talks to whom, and what can you
talk about when you talk."

And when those unseen forces shift, so do our supposedly deepest
convictions.

In the case of Ryan, almost everything in his life and career would have
discouraged him from questioning the death penalty -- even to himself --
until he became governor. As a Kankakee Republican, he moved almost
exclusively in circles where a belief in the death penalty was a given, and
where expressing doubts was political suicide.

But as governor, it became Ryan's job to personally review the last-minute
appeals of prisoners about to be executed, and by all accounts the job
weighed heavily.

"It was gut-wrenching for him," recalled his former press secretary Dennis
Culloton. "He was emotionally wrought."

And then in late 1999, Culloton said, the Chicago Tribune ran a series of
articles about former Death Row inmates who had been wrongly convicted on
the basis of bad evidence, bad witnesses and prosecutorial misconduct -- and
it pushed Ryan over the edge. What if one of those wrongly convicted men,
Ryan asked, had been executed on his watch?

It was during a back-office meeting with aides, Culloton recalled, that Ryan
first entertained the idea of declaring a moratorium on executions. He began
the meeting by repeatedly asking, "What do I do? What do I do?"

"Nowhere was there talk of the political calculation," Culloton said. "Not
once did he say something like, 'Will this get me off the front page of the
scandal sheets?' "
Also agonized over abortion

Do I believe Culloton's spin? Yeah. Because this isn't the first time I've
heard about Ryan struggling to reconcile his politics and his personal
morality.

When Ryan was running for governor, as Chicago-based journalist Jim Merriner
reported in the Sun-Times in April, he also agonized over his stand on
abortion. While Ryan was officially opposed to abortion except in cases of
rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, he secretly harbored doubts.

One day during the campaign, he met with a woman who had aborted a fetus
that had no brain. The woman then had gotten pregnant again and given birth
to a healthy boy, whom she had brought along to her meeting with Ryan.

Ryan, according to Merriner, listened to the woman's story and looked at her
baby and started crying. He turned to an aide, Scott Fawell, and said,
"Scott, I'm pro choice."

"No, you're not!" Fawell said.

"Yes, I am!"

And so on.

Ryan remained opposed to abortion, but pro-life activists never fully
trusted him.
'I can see now'

Ryan's harshest critics say he declared the moratorium and commuted the
sentences of Death Row inmates for bald political gains. But at that time,
it's probably fairer to say, nobody really knew what the political fallout
would be.

"The rather divided reaction of Illinoisans about his commutations was a
shock to most observers who had expected a firestorm of protests," said the
novelist and lawyer Scott Turow, who served on a panel that studied the
state's death penalty procedures. "He did what he did, in my judgment,
knowing that he might leave office loathed and face a jury as a complete
pariah. His actions on the death penalty throughout were dispassionate and
courageous."

Courageous, yes. Dispassionate, not completely.

Ryan's own legal problems, during which he came to see himself as a victim
of an overzealous prosecutor in a rigged system of justice, undoubtedly
caused him to feel greater compassion for wrongly accused men and women
everywhere -- even on Death Row.

I am told that he has said to friends: "I can see how this happens."
Still guilty

By now, you must be thinking I'm the world's biggest George Ryan fan, so let
me be clear:

I think Ryan is guilty. Overwhelmingly.

I think Ryan is a shabby old-school pol who sold out the whole state,
sparing only his leeching pals.

And I think Ryan should go to prison as scheduled Nov. 7 -- no more delays.

But I also know it's possible for a man to fly high and fall low at the same
time.

That, as Shakespeare said, is the human condition.

And before going off to prison, George Ryan should have won the Nobel Peace
Prize.

Tom McNamee's "The Chicago Way" column runs Mondays.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Ryan: 'I still believe'

Ryan: 'I still believe'

August 22, 2007

'We are staying strong," former Gov. George Ryan told Sneed shortly after learning his conviction on corruption charges had been upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit.

"We have a large and strong family, and we all understand what is happening," Ryan added. "Faith is a big part of our life and it continues to be now. And I also have a lot of faith in my counsel."

Ryan and his extended family stayed behind closed doors Tuesday at his home in Kankakee, which was surrounded by the news media, as they wondered whether the ex-Illinois governor would have to report to federal prison by Friday morning.

"We're fine, Mike. Really we are," said Ryan's wife, Lura Lynn, who met Ryan in high school and married him in 1956.

Later in the day, the 73-year-old Ryan was informed that the appellate court had allowed him to stay out of prison pending further appeal.

"I just got the good news," he told Sneed. "I always felt and hoped that there would be justice -- and I felt it today with the judges' ruling. I still believe in the system. ...

"Yes, I do feel some relief, and I guess we'll know what happens during the next two weeks."

Autographing books about mansion
For the most part, this summer has been a quiet and busy one for the Ryans, who have been staying active while awaiting word on Ryan's appeal since his conviction on fraud and corruption charges in April 2006.

This summer, Ryan weeded the garden at his modest home, planted hostas in the yard, took small Illinois road trips with Lura Lynn, hung out with his children and his grandkids and kept a close ear on his squeaky porch swing.

He and Lura Lynn also traveled to the Chicago Book Fair and hit the Kankakee Library to autograph books on the Springfield executive mansion, which were co-written by Lura Lynn to raise funds for the mansion's upkeep.

The books, 10,000 in all, vanished after Gov. Blagojevich was elected and were later resurrected by Lura Lynn from an Ohio warehouse.

Speaking against capital punishment
But it is Ryan's anti-death-penalty crusade that has been his constant focus.

"Gov. Ryan, who placed a moratorium on the death penalty heard around the world, has kept up his crusade to abolish the death penalty and spoken to countless groups which found him profoundly inspirational," said Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

"He has also been helping a prominent Italian photographer, Nicola Majocchi, put together a documentary, book and photo exhibition on the American death penalty," said Warden.

It highlights the lost years of exonerated prisoners. The project reportedly will debut this fall in New York City.

"Remember," said Warden, "he was the first governor in the nation to declare a moratorium on executions. And before leaving office in 2003, he granted blanket clemency and cleared out Illinois' Death Row."

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

'Chicago Tribune' Comes Out Against Death Penalty -- And Few Protest


ILLINOIS:

'Chicago Tribune' Comes Out Against Death Penalty -- And Few Protest


For several years now, the Chicago Tribune has published numerous articles
-- many of them award-winning -- exposing the many faults in the
administration of capital punishment in its home state and the nation.
Some of them helped inspire a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois.

All the while, the paper's editorial page continued to support capital
punishment. That changed 3 weeks ago with an editorial opposing the death
penalty. Relatively few newspapers have gone that far and public opinion
continues to back capital punishment -- although support drops when people
are given the option of "life without parole."

Today, the Tribune's public editor, Timothy McNulty, reports that his
paper's surprise editorial has drawn surprisingly little black from
readers. Here is the 1st part of his column.

**

Individuals change their minds often, but a change of mind for a
newspaper's editorial position, especially one that has stood since at
least 1869, is far less common.

When the Tribune's editorial board came out in opposition to the death
penalty three weeks ago, the newspaper might have expected a rise out of
readers and politicians previously aligned with traditional thinking that
favored capital punishment.

"The evidence of recent years argues that it is necessary to curb the
government's power," the editorial declared, overturning its previous
arguments. "It is time to abolish the death penalty."

There was barely a ripple, a few heartfelt letters to the editor, a few
calls, and almost all accepting and welcoming the new attitude.

Abolition of the death penalty isn't on the political radar at the moment,
and if any readers were surprised, they may have assumed the newspaper
already opposed the death penalty. 8 years ago, reporters Maurice Possley,
Steve Mills and Ken Armstrong began detailing the abuses, and their
reporting led then-Gov. George Ryan to impose a death-penalty moratorium
in 2000. Gov. Rod Blagojevich has maintained it since.

Tribune writers continue to lead on national stories about death-penalty
abuses. Cornelia Grumman, an editorial writer, won the Pulitzer Prize for
her series of editorials on the injustice of the death penalty.

While here and in other states the same arguments are put forward by both
sides of the debate, the Tribune's editorial board looked at them afresh,
but also with the overwhelming evidence that the death penalty is not
applied fairly and is too open to mistakes that cost innocent lives.

(source: Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor. He is
co-author, with Robert Jay Lifton, of the book about capital punishment,
"Who Owns Death?", publihsed in 2000)

Sunday, April 1, 2007

The Nobel Prize . . .


Michael Sneed

The Nobel Prize . . .

April 1, 2007
Sneed hears the Nobel Prize nomination of former Gov. George Ryan for his opposition to the death penalty has been accepted by the Nobel committee -- which has narrowed its list of thousands of nominees to 181.

It is the fifth time Ryan, who is still awaiting the outcome of his appeal for a mistrial, has been nominated by University of Illinois law Professor Francis Boyle.

Pssst!
Word is fedejral indictments against two top Illinois political players are this/close to hitting the headlines.

Thursday, March 1, 2007

Death penalty moratorium takes political courage


March 1, 2007

Death penalty moratorium takes political courage

By Michael Tackett, Post Bulletin

WASHINGTON -- While Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were engaged in
the first official hissy fit (the technical term) of the 2008 presidential
campaign, another Democrat was actually engaged in a matter of important
public policy.

Just to recap: Clinton was furious because Hollywood mogul David Geffen
ridiculed her and former President Bill Clinton in an interview with Maureen
Dowd of The New York Times on the very day that Geffen was hosting a
fundraiser for Obama that reportedly brought $1.3 million to his campaign.
Before his conversion to Obama, Geffen had raised about $18 million for the
former president.

The spat led to several days of coverage in a not-so-deep search for deeper
meaning about the state of the race and the state of the Clintons, which, by
the way, undoubtedly will be the campaign's ongoing soap opera subtext.

Meanwhile, across the country in Annapolis, Md., another public drama was
playing out, and in this case, the stakes were not money, but life and
death.

Martin O'Malley, the youthful new governor, made an emotional plea to a
state Senate committee to repeal the death penalty in Maryland.

That is one long march from the scene at a 1988 presidential debate when
Michael Dukakis was pilloried for giving a lawyerly answer to a hypothetical
question about whether he would impose the death penalty on a man who had
raped and murdered his wife. Dukakis' dispassionate rejection of capital
punishment became a ready emblem for the Republican narrative that Democrats
were soft on crime.

From that point on, most Democrats with higher ambitions rushed to be seen
as state-sanctioned Grim Reapers. None did it with as much flourish as
then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who jetted back to his state just before
the New Hampshire primary to preside over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector,
a brain-damaged man who told prison officials he wanted to save the dessert
from his last meal until after his execution.

Few Democrats since have been willing to take forceful public action that
would make it appear as if they were not tough on criminals. In fact, it was
not until a Republican, former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, imposed a
moratorium on the death penalty that any movement to repeal capital
punishment statutes gained significant traction. In fact, O'Malley cited
during his testimony the 18 Death Row inmates who have been released in
Illinois after their innocence was proved.

O'Malley has been on the short list of rising Democratic stars for several
years. Telegenic, smart and the leader of his own Irish band, O'Malley's
March, he was mayor of Baltimore before being elected governor last
November. Before that, he had been chosen to speak at the Democratic
National Convention in 2004 and fortunately for him, in a very forgettable
time slot, given a delivery that dripped with emotion far more than
sincerity.

His push to repeal the death penalty is perhaps his highest-profile move
since taking office, and one that carries abundant political risk,
particularly because he is seen as a politician with national ambitions.

But on this issue, O'Malley is resolutely righteous, making a moral and
theological argument as much as a political or legal one to support his
thesis that the death penalty is neither a "just punishment" nor an
"effective deterrent" to murder.

"Notwithstanding the executions of the rightly convicted, can the death
penalty ever be justified, then, as public policy when it inherently
necessitates the occasional taking of a wrongly convicted and innocent
life?" he said. "Is any one of us willing to sacrifice a member of our own
family -- wrongly convicted, sentenced and executed -- in order to secure
the execution of five rightly convicted murderers? And even if we were,
could that public policy be called 'just'? I believe it cannot."

He was just getting wound up.

"Individual human dignity is the concept that leads brave individuals to
sacrifice their own lives for the lives of strangers," O'Malley said.
"Individual human dignity is the truth universal that is the basis of all
ethics. Individual human dignity is the fundamental belief upon which all
laws of this state and this republic are founded. And absent a deterrent
value, I truly believe that the damage done by our conscious communal use of
the death penalty to the concept of human dignity is greater than the
benefit of even a justly drawn retribution.

"

It was a gutsy approach, even in a heavily Democratic state. And O'Malley
will find out if his risk is rewarded. Maybe Geffen would bankroll the
movie.

---

Source : Post Bulletin (Michael Tackett is the Chicago Tribune's Washington
Bureau chief. His e-mail address is mtacket@ttribune.com.)

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=2861
02&z=12

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Shutting Down Death Row


Shutting Down Death Row
Illinois' death-penalty reforms may presage a fairer criminal-justice system.

By Jean M. Templeton
Issue Date: 07.01.04

Change in the criminal-justice system is a rare thing. Change in death-penalty policy is even more rare. Yet Illinois undertook a comprehensive reassessment of its death-penalty system recently, passing reforms that will have far-reaching impacts on how murder trials are handled in the state -- and that could serve as a model for reform in the rest of the country.

Following the review, 11 men were released from death row, and the furor over the death penalty only escalated after the 1999 release of death-row inmate Anthony Porter. Porter had been convicted of a double murder, believed to be a holdup gone bad, in a Chicago park in 1982. A mere 50 hours before Porter's execution, his lawyers made a last-ditch attempt to save him by asserting new questions about his mental competence. His execution was stayed, and in the intervening months, journalism students working in cooperation with a private detective located another man who confessed to the murder. Porter was released.

The case, and the flood of media attention that accompanied it, was enough to raise doubts about the death-penalty system even among death-penalty supporters, including George Ryan, then the Republican governor of Illinois. In early 2000, Ryan took the bold step of declaring a moratorium on executions in the state until a panel of experts, the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment, could make recommendations about how the system might be improved. In 2002, after two years of intensive study, the blue-ribbon commission released a report making 85 recommendations for improving the state's capital-punishment system. Late last year, the Illinois Legislature adopted many of the recommended reforms, and current Governor Rod Blagojevich has pledged to continue the moratorium until the reforms' effectiveness can be assessed.

While both prosecution and defense supported many of the commission's recommendations, there were two that proved controversial. The first required videotaping of police interrogations; the second involved changes in lineup procedures to make eyewitness identifications more reliable. Both recommendations were initially opposed by law enforcement, and it took determined advocacy by legislators before they were included in last year's reforms. Now that they are law, they may produce far-reaching effects on the investigation of homicides in the state.

Because we often believe that our eyes don't deceive us, we tend to think that eyewitness accounts of a crime are the very best evidence of what actually occurred. Certainly juries often find it persuasive. Unfortunately, as extensive investigation by psychologists has shown, eyewitness evidence may not be especially reliable. The Illinois commission therefore recommended broad changes in the procedures for police lineups.

In a lineup, an eyewitness to or victim of a serious crime views a group of people or photos at the police station. The crime suspect is among the group, and the witness is asked whether he or she can identify anyone in the lineup. Generally speaking, the law requires that the other people in the lineup bear some resemblance to the suspect's description so that the suspect won't stand out. If the witness or victim identifies one of the group, a report is made of the identification.

Research shows, however, that witnesses often choose the person in the lineup who looks most like the person who committed the crime. In other words, they make a relative judgment. This process may produce a correct identification if the actual suspect is present. But if he or she is not, many people will simply select the person who most resembles him or her. This selection of the wrong person, what social scientists call a "false positive," can lead to the prosecution of an innocent person.

In an effort to eradicate false positives, Iowa psychologist Gary Wells and others have developed an alternative identification procedure called a "sequential lineup." In this procedure, the eyewitness looks at each person in the lineup separately, without observing the others in the group. The eyewitness then makes more of an absolute judgment about that person before observing other people or photos in the lineup. This process reduces the rate of mistaken identifications without substantively reducing the number of accurate identifications.

A majority of the Illinois commission recommended adopting sequential lineups. However, because existing methods had already met with court approval, some commission members had reservations about mandating a procedure radically different from that which was already in place. But one legislator with fairly conservative views on the death penalty argued persuasively for the change.

Representative Julie Hamos, a Democrat, represents a relatively liberal district along the north-shore suburbs of Chicago. Early in her legal career, she served as a policy adviser for the Cook County state's attorney's office, the largest prosecutor's office in Illinois. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, a conservative law-and-order Democrat, was the state's attorney in those days. Hamos herself supported the death penalty for heinous crimes.

Elected to the legislature in 1998, Hamos represents a district that includes many opponents of the death penalty. Troubled by the number of men released from death row in Illinois and affected by activism among her constituents on the issue, she began to modify her own views. Hamos also came to realize the frailties inherent in eyewitness testimony after conversations with Wells.

In 2002, she introduced a bill to require the use of sequential lineups. Prospects for passage seemed dim. But when the "Report of the Governor's Commission on the Death Penalty" was released in April of that year with a similar recommendation, Hamos renewed her efforts, working quietly among the Democratic leadership to ensure that the lineup proposals were on the table.

The measure failed that year, but as the legislature began its journey toward death-penalty reform in 2003, Hamos persuaded the leadership to include it again. In response to law-enforcement concerns, the proposal was limited to development of a pilot program that would enable the procedures to be tested in several police districts in the state. When that legislation passed in November 2003, sequential lineups were part of the bargain. By July 1, 2004, the Illinois State Police was to have identified three pilot police departments, one of which must be the city of Chicago, in which sequential lineups and photo spreads will be tested. A report on the program's effectiveness will be filed with the Illinois General Assembly by September 1, 2005.

Not every homicide case involves eyewitnesses, however, which often leaves police the task of interrogating a suspect in order to try to obtain a confession. A person's confession of murder is powerful evidence to prove guilt, and under the law it must have been made voluntarily. Where there is some dispute over whether the statement is voluntary, a defendant may seek to prevent the use of the statement as evidence against him or her.

As the debate over the inadequacies of the Illinois death-penalty system evolved, there were those who charged that some death-row convictions were based on confessions that were not true or not voluntary. Final statements in which a defendant confessed had been videotaped in the Cook County state's attorney's office since 1999. While videotaping these confessions has proven useful to demonstrate what the suspect actually said, critics complained that the program failed to capture the questioning process itself, in which undue pressure may be put on suspects to agree with the police version of events. Reformers in Illinois, including the governor's commission, pushed for the videotaping of the entire interrogation process.

Videotaping the process is important because academic studies suggest that there are circumstances under which people will confess falsely. One group known to do so are the mentally retarded, who sometimes confess in order to please authority figures. In 2000, a young Chicago man named Corethian Bell was arrested for killing his mother. Bell, described as mentally ill and borderline retarded, gave a videotaped confession that he had, indeed, killed his mother. Subsequent DNA testing, however, suggested that another man might have been guilty of the crime, and Bell was released from jail and charges against him dropped -- despite his confession.

More troubling are confessions coming from those who may have been unduly pressured or abused. In the late 1980s, complaints began to surface that a group of Chicago police officers, led by then–Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge, had brutalized suspects in order to obtain confessions. The allegations went beyond rough treatment during arrest to claims of systematic torture. Suspects alleged that they were beaten, shocked with electrical currents, and threatened with being shot in order to compel confessions. Although Burge denied the charges, he was fired in 1993 for physical brutality against a suspect. None of the police officers alleged to have been involved faced criminal charges. In 2002, almost 10 years later, a special prosecutor was appointed to look into the allegations. Media reports suggest that the number of possible cases of torture has now risen to more than 100. The special prosecutor's report is expected sometime this year.

Proponents of videotaping interrogations point to these incidents to support their case. Videotaping the entire process, they say, would protect suspects from abuses and police officers from unfounded charges of brutality. Yet in Illinois, the proposal failed to gain wide acceptance among police departments. Officials said it would interfere with police work or that it would be too costly. Bills to implement some form of videotaping of interrogations were introduced in the Illinois Legislature in 1999, but they never got a hearing. The Illinois House revisited the issue in 2001, and it did pass provisions requiring videotaped interrogations, but the bill did not get a hearing in the Illinois Senate. It was not until control of the state Senate changed hands in the 2002 elections that a videotaping bill appeared headed for passage.

Credit for getting the videotaping bill into the final death-penalty package has been largely attributed to state Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Chicago. Obama is now running a strong race for the U.S. Senate, which, if successful, would make him the third African American senator since Reconstruction. Elected to the Illinois Legislature in 1996, he is considered an extremely effective legislator. Rather than accept law-enforcement opposition to the bill, he brought law-enforcement officials to the table for discussion, eventually persuading them to drop their opposition.

Illinois thus became the first state in the nation to pass legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations. The legislation applies to what are called "custodial interrogations" -- those occurring at a police station -- in all homicide cases. The law works by preventing statements made by a suspect from being admitted in a court proceeding unless the statement was recorded electronically. Under limited circumstances, the prosecution may use unrecorded statements in court if they prove that the statement was voluntarily given and is reliable. The provisions represent a significant change from prior law, which permitted the prosecution to use a statement made by a defendant and put the burden on the defendant to prove that the statement was not given voluntarily. Under the new law, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that a statement made outside of an electronic recording process was made voluntarily and is reliable.

Provisions requiring electronic recording do not take effect until 2005 in order to allow time to develop procedures governing the recording. In the meantime, legislation was passed to establish several pilot programs throughout the state to record interrogations in murder cases. These programs will help police agencies develop procedures on how videotaping the interrogation process should occur and provide training for police officers in how to conduct videotaped interrogations.

In Illinois, these innovative proposals -- videotaping interrogations and sequential lineups -- apply not only to death-penalty cases but to others as well. While officials were initially reluctant to embrace the proposals, their widespread use will ultimately lead to better documentation of evidence and reduce wrongful convictions of all types. In departments where interrogations are videotaped and initial police resistance overcome, we have seen positive benefits, including a sharpening of police interview skills. Over the long term, police will likely come to appreciate these more rigorous investigative techniques.

Improvements in the death-penalty system have gathered increased support among legislators and the public. The reforms in Illinois passed by a nearly unanimous vote of the legislature. And public-opinion polling in February of 2003 suggests a softening of public attitudes on the death penalty in Illinois, with the percentage of state residents who support the death penalty at 55 percent, which is well below national polling figures.

Meanwhile, DNA testing continues to be carried out, leading to the release of innocent men and women -- more persuasive proof that our criminal-justice system makes mistakes, which is key in promoting death-penalty reform. The recommendations produced by the governor's commission in Illinois have become a standard by which other states have begun to evaluate their own death-penalty systems. In California, for instance, scholars have recently undertaken a systematic comparison of that state's death-penalty process with the Illinois recommendations and have illuminated many weaknesses.

In North Carolina, advocates of a death-penalty moratorium, modeled on Illinois Governor Ryan's, have gained ground with policy-makers. The North Carolina Senate passed moratorium provisions last year, and advocates are seeking approval in the North Carolina House. Public-opinion polling done by moratorium supporters indicates that 63 percent of those polled favor a moratorium on executions in the state pending a review of the death-penalty system. The North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers has released its own list of reforms that should be considered during such a moratorium, including a number of the same substantive reforms suggested in Illinois.

The discussion over reforming the death-penalty system, and the successful passage of so many reforms, has led to a broader evaluation of the criminal-justice system in Illinois and elsewhere. Greater scrutiny of death-penalty cases involving wrongful convictions is slowly leading observers to ask whether there are other miscarriages of justice we have yet to uncover in the rest of the criminal-justice system, where cases are given a far less rigorous review. Death-penalty reforms, then, may be a first step on the road to broader evaluation of the criminal-justice system itself.

© 2007 by The American Prospect, Inc.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Missouri groups lobby for death penalty moratorium


February 22, 2007

Missouri

Missouri groups lobby for death penalty moratorium

By Bob Watson, News Tribune

State Rep. Bill Deeken promised no miracles Tuesday when he talked about his
bill seeking a three-year moratorium on Missouri executions.

"I feel very confident that we will get a hearing this year, which is, I
think, the most important thing," said Deeken, R-Jefferson City. "Will we
get it passed this year? No.

"I've found out that you just don't come up with a bill and get it passed
right away."

Deeken's bill would place a moratorium on all executions in Missouri until
Jan. 1, 2011, and create a 10-member Commission on the Death Penalty to
study the use of the death penalty and recommend changes to state laws and
court rules regarding death penalty cases.

That commission would include lawmakers, defense and prosecution lawyers,
the Attorney General and family members of a murder victim and of a death
row inmate.

Deeken told more than 50 Missourians who came to Jefferson City to lobby for
the bill that the Missouri Catholic Conference asked him to sponsor it.

"The first thing I told them was, I am in favor of the death penalty,"
Deeken reported, "but we've got to do something about the people that are
being put to death that are not guilty - and we're finding this out more and
more, all the time."

Tom Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor with a 50-year history of legal
battles, co-chaired Illinois Gov. George Ryan's Capital Punishment Study
Commission.

Like Missouri, Sullivan said, Illinois' system had a lot of "bias in the
application of the death penalty" because each county's prosecutor decides
which cases to prosecute as death cases, with "no systematic review of what
they do - so you'll see a very great disparity among the cases that are
selected for death."

Ultimately, Sullivan said, Missouri should join the dozen other U.S. states
that don't have a death penalty.

"The deterrent effect of it is a joke," he said. "The death penalty is a
dumb law - stupid, costly and far more expensive than to put somebody in
jail, if they did it.

"And if you make a mistake, it's irreversible."

While many in the crowd agreed with Sullivan, they were encouraged to lobby
only for the moratorium right now.

Redditt Hudson, Racial Justice manager for the American Civil Liberties
Union of Eastern Missouri, told the crowd: "Our mission is worthy ... moral
(and) just."

Hudson struggles with the issue of the criminal justice system's just-ness
and fairness, when there have been 128 exonerations nationwide "where
innocent people have been shown to be innocent, yet (are) on death row,
scheduled to be executed."

"It doesn't mean I'm pro-criminal," he said. "It doesn't mean I'm
anti-law-enforcement.

"It means that as a human being, and for the sake of our collective
humanity, we have to do a better job of delivering the justice process to
the people who are in our system."

---

Source : News Tribune