It really does not matter if you are an advocate for or against the death penalty. That debate has been done on many occasions. Despite which side of the fence that you may find yourself, outgoing Illinois Governor George Ryan's recent actions in commuting the sentences of every state inmate on death row are beyond any reasonable understanding.

Many blanket decisions whereby an entire subject matter is handled with one giant swoop most often prove in time to be remarkably stupid. History will record this action to be the benchmark of such a stupid decision. The institutional taking of one's life, as the states who exercise the death penalty do, is a decision that demands thorough consideration. Furthermore, it is imperative that those who are sentenced to death receive every possible form of review and appeal to ensure that this type of sentence is not delivered to those that are not deserving. However, to simply abolish an entire level of punishment without a case by case consideration is based on knee jerk decisions or more probable, personal agendas that do not take into consideration how such actions will affect so many people.

In considering former Governor Ryan's actions, I was remindful of another such time when the abolishment of the death penalty was being considered in Georgia. The year was 1967 and debate was hot and heavy as to how the death penalty was being issued. A delegation from the General Assembly was advocating that the system was so corrupt that the only feasible thing to do was to abolish it completely. The late Jimmy Mason, who was a Gwinnett State Representative at the time, was quoted in a story published in the now defunct "The News Of Gwinnett" as saying that he had no problem with a state wide referendum concerning the question of keeping or doing away with the death penalty. Mason stated, "Frankly, I'm convinced that the people would vote to keep capital punishment. I have no doubt whatever that the "everyday Joe" -the regular man on the street who is exposed to the crime elements, would vote to keep capital punishment." He went on to say that he was, however, disappointed with the way that one man might be given the death penalty and another turned free for basically the same crime.

Jimmy Mason was right on point 33 years ago and his sentiments still ring true today. To abolish an entire level of possible punishment for those who commit the most severe crimes undermines the entire system. Mason was also right in what he said concerning the "every day Joe" who was exposed to the criminal element. These are the very people that this decision will effect. Governor Ryan's decision was based on what Governor Ryan wanted to happen and is not the consensus of everyday people. Ryan stated, as part of his argument, that if one innocent person was killed by execution then the entire system would be liable and flawed beyond correction. However, the Governor did not mention that there is no evidence that an innocent person has been executed. There have been documented cases whereby DNA evidence scientifically excluded persons on death row from having committed the crime and based on the new evidence they were removed from death row. If there is any evidence that an innocent person was executed, where is the evidence? This information would add a lot more ammunition to Ryan's decision, rather than blanket statements that lack any legal corroboration. Ryan's decision, which disregarded any shred of common sense, was nothing more than a politician taking advantage of an opportunity to bring a windfall of publicity his way. It should be noted that he surely succeeded. But, at what cost was this success of self promotion? According to Ryan's statement, his concerns were based on "that one innocent person" but he totally disregarded the feelings of hundreds and hundreds of victims, who were victimized once again based on his decision.

There is mutual agreement from all sides or at least by those who approach this topic in a rational manner, that capital punishment in our country is something that needs to be examined closely. Where problems exist, we must do all that is necessary to ensure that those problems are alleviated and more importantly we must be assured that this is an equitable, fair and just punishment that is without prejudice and bias. This can only be done by reasonable people that have no hidden agendas, sitting down to ensure that the ultimate punishment is doled out only to those who deserve such a sentence. An independent, case by case, evaluation would have allowed those cases that were questionable to be revisited without destroying the efforts that had been made to see that those who were deserving were held responsible for their crimes.

Ryan ignored this solution and decided to be the judge and jury all by himself. But, we should not be surprised by the fact that his bureaucratic and selfish decision goes against all logic. After all, Ryan is not an "everyday Joe."