
Editorial: A reminder of the state's ultimate power — Indiana executes again
Indiana's second execution in 15 years is a grim reminder of the dual tragedy at the heart of capital punishment — the horrific violence inflicted by killers, and the irrevocable power the state wields in taking a life in return.
This board has long questioned whether any human system is equipped to administer such final justice, a stance shaped by decades of reflection and the Pulitzer-winning work of former Tribune Editorial Board member Cornelia Grumman, who challenged readers to confront the fallibility beneath the death penalty's finality.
Before Illinois ended capital punishment in 2011, this board urged reforms such as videotaping interrogations and banning executions of people with intellectual disabilities.
'Now's the time to get it right. Get it right or get rid of it,' we wrote in 2002. Former Gov. Pat Quinn listened, and we applauded.
Capital punishment can feel far removed in Illinois these days. Yet this execution, carried out Tuesday just across the state border in Michigan City, Indiana, makes it feel closer to home.
Prisoner Benjamin Ritchie was 45 when he died at 12:46 a.m. Tuesday, punishment for killing a Beech Grove police officer in 2000.
His was one of 12 executions scheduled across eight states this year, including others this week in Texas and Tennessee.
Lost in the bigger conversation about capital punishment are the victims, a frustration that eats away at families grieving loved ones.
Officer William Toney, a husband and father, was a day from his 32nd birthday when Ritchie shot and killed him. His daughters, just 18 months and 4 years old at the time, grew up without him — a burden no child should bear.
We do not pass judgment on those whose loved ones have been taken by violence, and we recognize that for grieving families, life may feel easier when the person responsible is gone.
But as a society, we do have to grapple with how our justice system handles punishment for those who commit the most grievous crimes. This board has long held grave concerns when it comes to the death penalty.
Indiana is one of 27 other states that continue to practice the death penalty, and is one of just two states that bans reporters from being present at executions. Even in states where the death penalty remains on the books, legal, ethical and political hurdles have led to yearslong delays in carrying out executions.
Indiana's 15-year pause in executions stemmed largely from difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies, especially in Europe, refused to supply drugs for use in executions.
Pharmaceutical companies are right to have qualms about manufacturing products used to end life, and they're not alone. Too many people have been sent to death row, only to be exonerated years later.
Northwestern University research found that 20 people sentenced to death in Illinois between the 1970s and 1990s were later exonerated.
Beyond the system's fallibility is the moral dimension of capital punishment. People have long used the Bible to justify both sides of this issue. The Old Testament is full of the type of justice that gives credence to pro-death penalty advocates, while the compassion of Christ provides evidence for those against the death penalty. We're not theologians, but Chicago's own Robert Prevost — now Pope Leo XIV — once shared his view on his now-deleted personal Twitter account.
'It's time to end the death penalty,' he posted a decade ago.
That view is consistent with Catholic teaching from our recent popes, including Francis, who called capital punishment 'inadmissible,' and John Paul II, who viewed the death penalty as an option of last resort in the event that no other option to protect society existed, adding 'such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.'
Human justice is never perfect. That's why the death penalty is so dangerous.
When a punishment allows no room for error, the question remains: Why are we still willing to take that risk?
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge says Weinstein juror complaining about jury strife cannot be excused
By Jody Godoy NEW YORK (Reuters) -The judge overseeing former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein's rape and sexual assault trial refused on Friday to dismiss a juror who said some jurors were treating others on the 12-person panel unfairly. "I just don't think it's fair and just," the juror told New York Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber in court, referring to things other jurors were saying and doing behind another juror's back. "There is a bit of a shunning happening," the juror said. The juror asked to be dismissed but Farber said there was no legal basis to do so after the juror confirmed that no one on the jury panel was pressuring him to change his view of the case. "If any other juror feels they need to talk to me, they can," the judge said. Weinstein's lawyers said they would make a proposal on how to address the matter later on Friday. Friday was the second day of jury deliberations. No other jurors were present during the exchange. Farber dismissed alternates from the jury on Thursday. Weinstein, 73, was convicted of rape by a Manhattan jury in February 2020, but the New York Court of Appeals threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial, citing errors by the trial judge. Prosecutors say the Academy Award-winning producer raped aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013 and assaulted two other women in 2006 and 2002. Weinstein, who has denied ever having non-consensual sex or assaulting anyone, has pleaded not guilty. He faces up to 25 years in prison for two counts of criminal sexual acts and up to four years for one count of rape. Weinstein is already serving a 16-year prison sentence after being found guilty in December 2022 of rape in a separate California case. Prosecutors with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have portrayed Weinstein as a serial predator who promised career advancement in Hollywood to women, only to then coax them into private settings where he attacked them. Weinstein's defense lawyers have said his encounters with the women were consensual and accused them of lying about being raped after failing to make it big in Hollywood by sleeping with him.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jury resumes deliberations in Harvey Weinstein sex crimes retrial
A Manhattan jury resumed deliberations on Friday in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial after ending its first day without reaching a verdict in a case that encapsulated the #MeToo movement. The panel, which was handed the case on Thursday morning, has requested to hear a readback of some testimony from two of Weinstein's accusers, as well as to see medical records from one of those women. The jury of seven women and five men is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape against the 73-year-old Oscar-winning movie producer, with the criminal sex act charges the higher-degree felonies. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty. Sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017. He was eventually convicted of sex crimes in New York and California, but the New York conviction was overturned last year, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge. Jurors heard more than five weeks of evidence, including lengthy testimony from three accusers.

13 hours ago
Jury deliberations to resume in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial
NEW YORK -- A Manhattan jury will resume deliberations Friday in Harvey Weinstein 's sex crimes retrial after ending its first day without reaching a verdict in a case that encapsulated the #MeToo movement. The panel, which was handed the case Thursday morning, has requested to hear a readback of some testimony from two of Weinstein's accusers, as well as to see medical records from one of those women. The jury of seven women and five men is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape against the 73-year-old Oscar-winning movie producer, with the criminal sex act charges the higher-degree felonies. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty. Sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017. He was eventually convicted of sex crimes in New York and California, but the New York conviction was overturned last year, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge.