At the web site of the Medill Innocence Project mentioned in the previous posting, David Protess of the project states that "Prosecutors sought the death penalty -- execution by lethal injection. Instead, Judge Richard Samuels sentenced Anthony to natural life in prison. His appeals were denied by the Illinois Court of Appeals and the Illinois Supreme Court." He goes on to say in his conclusion, "In sum, the actual perpetrators were widely known at the time of the crime, yet law enforcement officials arrested, prosecuted and sought the death penalty for an innocent teenager who happened to be near the crime scene because he was being chased and needed their help."
Prosecutors are given the power to decide which criminal cases to prosecute to convict those guilty of serious offenses in our communities. Implied in this power is the expectation that they will not misuse this power by prosecuting those who may actually be innocent and therefore allowing a guilty party to continue to endanger the community. It is especially important in cases where capital punishment is sought. Mistakes or purposeful abuses of the legal process cannot be remedied when the defendant is dead. It may also be very difficult to uncover wrong doing when the case is closed by death.
Here in Illinois we have the exceptional lessons from the events that lead former Governor Ryan to imposed a historic moratorium on executions in Illinois and to pardon four prisoners awaiting execution, due to compelling evidence uncovered that in too many cases the wrong person was in jail while the true perpetrators had a "stay-out-of-jail card" courtesy of the malfeasance of law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors.
The Report of The Governor‘S Commission On Capital Punishment, George H. Ryan Governor, APRIL. 15, 2002, states that :
"State’s attorneys in Lake. DuPage and Cook Counties have advised the Commission that they already utilize the concept of a review committee within their respective offices to assist the State’s attoney in screening cases which are potentially eligible for the death penalty. It is a good idea to constitute such an internal review conmitttee to provide a thorough analysis of whether a particular case warrants the death penalty. Written state-wide protocols for prosecutors would provide voluntary guidance for all prosecutors in the state with respect to how such an evaluation may best be conducted. For example, in making a decision about whether to pursue the death penalty, an individual prosecutor should consider not only whether the case meets the basic requirements to be death eligible under the statute, but should also consider the degree to which the evidence is sufficient to warrant such a serious penalty."
( Chapter 5, p.83 )
If such procedures are already recognized best practices to be followed in regards to prosecuting a capital case, why doesn't State's Attorney Alvarez make use of the information that the students have so carefully discovered to correct what appears to be significant departures from these standards ? Rather than attempting to violate the student's privacy in the guise of checking their information. They have already provided and publicly posted what is needed for that.
Comments