Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Things aren’t always what they seem
Next Post: Poll: Quinn approval at 30.6 percent
Posted in:
* It turns out that Gov. Pat Quinn did talk to a survivor of somebody who had been killed by an inmate currently on Death Row when the governor was deciding what to do about the death penalty. Technically, however, no survivors of victims killed by people actually sentenced to death row were consulted…
Quinn told reporters that he talked to advocates on either end of the death penalty spectrum while weighing the issue, but the governor specifically acknowledged he did not speak to any family members whose loved ones were killed by the 15 on death row.
“I think I listened to many, many people on both sides of this issue. I think it is probably impossible for me to talk to everyone,” Quinn said.
After Quinn made that statement a week and a half ago, his office Friday clarified the governor’s assertion that he had not met with any family members who had loved ones murdered by someone on Death Row.
In a late February meeting with anti-abolitionists, the governor met with prosecutors, the family of slain Chicago cop Thomas Wortham, and Roger Schnorr, whose sister, Donna, was raped and murdered by death row inmate Brian Dugan, Quinn spokeswoman Annie Thompson said.
Dugan was sentenced to life in prison for killing Donna Schnorr, but Dugan’s actual death sentence came in 2009 for the 1983 murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico, of Naperville.
* The Question: Should Gov. Quinn have taken the time to meet with more survivors of the victims of Death Row inmates? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 1:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Things aren’t always what they seem
Next Post: Poll: Quinn approval at 30.6 percent
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
He talked to somebody who was killed by an inmate? That would be a major news story nationwide. Or do you mean he talked to somebody’s family who was killed by an inmate?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 6:43 am
Can’t get better feedback than from an actual victim, can you? But, unless the death penalty can bring back the dead, I don’t see how talking to families of victims in great number makes a difference.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 7:21 am
No, If he can’t make up his own mind if doesn’t deserve the job. The State has way more important issues than this.
Comment by Tom Smith Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 7:29 am
It seems unlikely he would get any new information by talking to more victims’ families. I know these folks want to be heard, but the problem really has nothing to do with them. It has to do with sentencing innocent people to death for a crime committed by somebody else.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 8:03 am
Either study senseless, horrific murders and impact on families in making decisions or pass while Excessively Rabid comes up with some names of innocent persons executed in Illinois.
Comment by The Foz Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 8:30 am
If he talked to family members of someone killed by serial killer Dugan, that would seem to qualify for me.
There was no lack of emotion on this issue. But you make decisions based on reason.
Dillard’s bill on the death penalty deserves an airing, but it’s a head-scratcher as to why it couldn’t have been introduced during the moratorium and before the abolition.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 8:50 am
Why would Quinn want to meet with Illinois residents when Martin Sheen is on the phone calling from California. Snead doesn’t put you in her column when you talk to actual Illinois residents who aren’t famous. Quinn had his mind made up as soon as the bill passed and took the easy way out by skipping the families of crime victims.
Comment by Fed up Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:09 am
There will never be enough people for a governor to talk to about this topic. There will always be one more relative, legal group, research study, advocacy group, angry whatevers who feel their input is required. What the groups have to say is very important, but controversial topics almost never have a clean concensus. At some point who ever is in the Governor’s job has to make a choice. A future Governor can change this decision based on politics, the courts, and technology at that time. For Quinn this is one of 20+(?) major decisions he has to make. I would not think this is in the top 10, even though the people directly effected no doubt feel differently.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:14 am
Rich,
I think you need to add “whose family member” to the first sentence. Right now it reads that Quinn talked to someone who was killed by someone on death row. Unless he is holding a seance, that you probably be hard to do.
Comment by WUSTL Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:17 am
No, they are obviously biased.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:25 am
Only if he wanted to actually look at both sides of the issue.
Comment by amalia Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:28 am
Do we want government of, by, and for emotion? If so, it would be important that policy makers form decisions on criminal penalties by meeting with crime victims and their families. If, on the other hand, we want government with a rational relationship between action and outcome, we should urge our policy makers to turn to those who can more dispassionately analyze the questions at hand. So no, the governor doesn’t need to meet with those whose only expertise is accidental.
Comment by Draznnl Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:33 am
No. As others have said, this issue cannot be decided based on emotion. We should certainly acknowledge the the pain the victim’s families are feeling, but that pain cannot be the basis for Quinn’s decision.
We can always say he should have talked to more people, heard more stories, but, at the end of the day, he had to step up and make a decision. I feel he handled this process relatively well.
Comment by Montrose Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:38 am
Probably it’s better that he didn’t. It would have been dishonest since he’d known for a long time he would sign that bill. I suspect the reeling families’ sense of anger and loss had he spoken with them face to face and then ignored their pleas would have been even greater than his being “too busy” to meet with them.
Don’t underestimate how Quinn’s low approval ratings have (among other things) his death penalty bill signing baked in, though. The DP issue is far from the typical liberal/conservative split out there in real Illinois. Many many smart people think the bill could have been, and should have been crafted in a way to address law enforcement and victim’s families’ concerns while still preventing death row for innocents.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:40 am
No. It would have been disingenuous to talk to them. He was going to sign it no matter what they discussed.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:56 am
No-Sorry for the victim’s families, but discussing it with them wouldn’t have helped their grief.
The problem is that the death penalty, as practiced in this modern world, helps no one. If a convicted murderer was taken out and killed immediately after being found guilty, it might serve as a deterrent, or satisfy the families need for revenge, or save money. The problem is that innocent persons would certainly be put to death.
Comment by Dowmstate Commissioner Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 10:00 am
- Draznnl - ~Do we want government of, by, and for emotion?~
This needs to be said over and over.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 10:04 am
Yes he should have. Although I am sure he would get the emotional side of the discussion from victim’s families, you should not assume that is all he would get. They have been thru the process and may have insights (beyond emotions) that you and I would never have if not in their position. They have seen the system up close and personal.
Comment by Nuance Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 10:12 am
NO - Legislature passed it - simply sign it - at that point, whether he, I , or victims families agree does not matter - The legislature spoke
Comment by x ace Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 10:33 am
Yes, I think he should have tried to talk to more of the families of victims of the 15 men on death row before commuting their sentences. I naively believed me might be doing that given how long he took to sign the bill. If he handled those meetings properly, it could have been a healing moment for some of those families. Instead, this might reopen old wounds.
Nothing, including putting the killers to death, would bring back the victims. But inviting the families in, hearing them out, explaining why the decision was being made, and above all listening to those who are more than stakeholders in the decision was the right way to do this.
Didn’t George Ryan issue the moratorium in similar fashion — without talking to any victims’ families? Quinn should have known the criticism Ryan received for that, and that should have guided his choice to handle this situation better that his predecessor.
Anyway, that’s how I see it. I still think Quinn did the right thing by signing the bill. But as we’ve come to expect, the guy can’t seem to do it right even when the outcome is right. Doing the right thing the wrong way may be Quinn’s legacy.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 10:46 am
sorry, 47th, but I disagree. I can only imagine Ms. McNamara’s pain, and the horror that her family lives through every day. But if the Governor was leaning toward signing, I think it would have given her false hope to meet with her. There are some things that you can never reach closure on, and one of them is the violent death of a beloved child. I think Ms. McNamara would have been justly angry to have been carted in for a high-profile meeting, only to have the Governor sign the bill anyway.
Comment by soccermom Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:26 am
Roland Cruz? Randy Steidl?
Comment by Excessively Rabid Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:29 am
Sorry, Rolando of course. And these guys weren’t executed, but the state has managed to sentence a number of completely innocent people to death. I thought everybody was clear on that point by now.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:31 am
Were Quinn’s action in concert with the wishes of the citizenry? If the citizens wanted the death penalty while the legislature banned it he should veto the bill. If the legislature acted in concert with the wishes of the citizens, then he should sign the bill. This is the methodology I would consider as Governor.
If Quinn felt sighing the ablution was not consistent with the wishes of his constituents, he should get in front of the issue and persuade the people. That’s called leadership, by the way.
All of our elected officials, from dog catcher to president, are there to represent the interests of their citizens, while making sure that individual liberties are maintained. When a new consensus is needed, they should lead us in our understanding of the issue and build a consensus.
Pat Quinn does none of this. Never has and never will. It says nothing about him as a person, I’d bet a buck he is one of the nicest people you’d ever meet. But he is about the worse leader I’ve seen in a long time.
Quinn seems to be taking the same unfocussed path to leadership as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (who at least appears to sometimes have a clear agenda). Kinda like Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope. I think the emphasis may be on the “dope” in Quinn’s case.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:35 am
It is not leadership to stick your finger in the air to see what the citizenry thinks every time a decision has to be made. One is elected to make decisions and then face the voters at the appropriate time.
Now, I think it might have been more appropriate for him to meet with more of the families of victims of those on death row. However, I don’t think it would have ultimately affected his final determination on abolishing the death penalty.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:39 am
Why should he? He knew from the beginning what he was going to do.
Comment by Jim Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:42 am
- Demoralized - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:39 am:
“It is not leadership to stick your finger in the air to see what the citizenry thinks every time a decision has to be made.”
Amen.
That’s why I say that he should have spent some time instructing his constituents, or at least coming up with some logical explanation of his actions. We criticized Kirk about this last fall.
With our boy Pat, we get the Hamlet treatment on almost every issue. He contemplates his navel then comes out some position even his supporters cannot explain nor provide us with the blueprint on how the decision was made.
My biggest fear lies in what several people are saying. This decision was cooked in the cake. As was no-layoffs for the unions. As are many other things Quinn has done and will do. I believe he is a puppet for special interests.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:47 am
–Were Quinn’s action in concert with the wishes of the citizenry? If the citizens wanted the death penalty while the legislature banned it he should veto the bill. If the legislature acted in concert with the wishes of the citizens, then he should sign the bill. This is the methodology I would consider as Governor.–
Edmund Burke, the Irishman who served in Parliament and is considered the father of modern conservatism, would disagree as to your methodology.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:54 am
Cincinnatus, how do you explain the layoffs that are happening because of the repeal of the death penalty? Does those not count?
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:56 am
- Cheryl44 - Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:56 am:
“Cincinnatus, how do you explain the layoffs that are happening because of the repeal of the death penalty? Does those not count?”
Unintended consequences.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 12:08 pm
Despite the many things I dislike about Quinn and his policies, the one thing I don’t doubt is his emotional honesty. I believe him when he described his personal evaluation on the issue and do not question who he talked to and how he made his decision. He will never be a good communicator, but I do not doubt his sincerity on this issue.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 12:28 pm
He’d look even more phony if he talked to victims with the decision already made.Ignoring them is more respectful.But the insinuation in his “evaluation” certainly gave the idea that he considered both sides of the argument and that he talked with both sides.He didn’t.
Comment by Earl Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 12:32 pm
they certainly were an interested constituency, so yes, he should have talked to him.
but if he had talked to them, he might have flipflopped, so I’ll flipflop and say no.
Comment by Robert Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 2:29 pm
So many comments like this one:
“Why should he? He knew from the beginning what he was going to do.”
I have no idea what the source is for comments like that. My sources kept telling me the opposite and that in particular, that there was a strong possiblity he was going to take the pen out and re-write it. From what I hear, his mind was not made up until very close to the end.
I’m not a fan of the Gov., but it would be nice for people to start blaming him for what he actually does, rather than what people assumed that he was thinking at the time.
Comment by Jasper Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 3:07 pm
No. Actually, there was no need (other than for the media publicity) for him to meet with any of the survivors of victims of death row inmates. I believe that Pat Quinn already knew that he was going to abolish the death penalty before he talked to a single soul. His decision was all about political gamesmanship. The abolishment of the death penalty was “cut & dried” way before Quinn said “boo” about it to the media. Quinn simply takes orders from “his boss” within the Democrat Party. Call me cynical but I think my feelings reflect those of a huge number of the residents in Illinois. Just like the deal that was decided between Quinn and Careen Gordon or the political reward for Party loyalty to Debbie Halvorson (soon to become Secretary of IDOT), most of the Illinois voters feel that we are handed “yesterday’s” newspapers and are told we should be grateful that we are told anything.
Quinn’s “less than favorable” poll numbers express the majority of the Illinois voter’s sentiment. An interesting polling question would be: “Do you feel that Quinn is actually “the puppet” in charge down in Springfield?”
Comment by Wilson Pickett Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 5:13 pm
–Quinn’s “less than favorable” poll numbers express the majority of the Illinois voter’s sentiment. –
In regards to the death penalty, a majority of Illinois’ elected representatives voted for abolition. Gov. Quinn, elected with a plurality, signed the bill passed by both chambers.
You can’t claim a majority of voter “sentiment” until you win something. Other than counties.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 5:25 pm
I don’t think so. The pain on both sided would have been unnecessary and not helpful. The facts remain that capital punishment doesn’t really get imposed fast enough, and costs millions. Locking away a monster and throwing away the key is the second best option, and more practical. No need for Quinn to get beat up on this. Other things, yes.
Don’t forget, he only signed the bill. The Chicago D’s wrote and passed it.
Comment by park Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 6:52 pm