Taking Life From Death

Ed. does not know how difficult is the decision facing Illinois Gov. George Ryan.

Gov. Ryan is, we assume, weighing heavily the fate of 160 Illinois Death Row inmates. Ryan lost his re-election bid, so he has weeks to decide their fates. Some time ago, he imposed a moratorium on execution of the death penalty because new evidence (DNA, generally) was brought forward in a number of cases. Many convictions were overturned. That is seen as a fatal flaw to imposition of the death penalty -- the killing of innocents.

Families of murder victims are outraged that all, or even some, death row inmates may have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment.

Perhaps Ryan's actions have been nothing more than a PR front to deflect scrutiny from inquiries about his campaign organization's fund-raising practices. It's a possibility, given the vicissitudes of the human conscience (vel non).

But political and legal ethics (as I said, vel non) aside, this is a burden that I shudder to think anyone could have to face. It is not dissimilar, perhaps, from what some have felt in deciding whether to send armies to war ... or whether to unleash mankind's inhumanity upon other human beings.

It is the decision for lives, or deaths. Deaths that many would say have been earned. Ed. would have hoped that the just deliberations of 12 men tried and true would have settled the questions beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it is a messy business, this justice. Either we change the system, or we make corrections to the outcomes as necessary to prevent a travesty of justice.

But the larger question really is: What is just? Isn't it.

This is not a rhetorical question. It is one that has an answer. It's just that it's an answer that's hard to like.

Justice is a quality based in moral rightness as seen by one or more human beings. Words like "principle" and "conformity" are used in the definition of "just."

Justice, then, is always relative to those who make the rules and to those who apply them. The word "consensus" comes to mind.

Therefore, error is an inherent possibility. Always. In all things human, whether decided by one, by all or by 12.

So, the imposition of justice is a matter of choice. Legislatures must choose which laws to enact. Judges decide which laws are applicable. Juries decide the status of the actions of the accused ... and whether to impose a sentence of death.

If errors can be made, and if we believe that life is so precious as to be worth killing for, then the process must have a backstop. At this point, the role of gatekeeper is being borne by one person - Gov. Ryan. He took it upon himself, true. But now that he has, he has to decide what if anything to do about the situation. At least until we, the people, choose a better way to deal with trials, evidence, defendants and human fallibility.

So if life is so important as to be worth killing for, what to do about the mere possibility of killing the wrong person?

Ed.'s father used to say: "Lose where you lose the least."

Humankind loses more in the death of the innocent, perhaps, than it gains by the death of the guilty.

After all, isn't the avenging of that innocence lost the strongest reason for imposing the penalty in the first place?

And if we are finding cases in which we can be no more sure of the guilt of a person than of his or her innocence, then we must err on the side of innocence. Even while damning those who cared less for the innocent than we.

It is only just.

And that is our burden.