The gentleman from Illinois is no doubt among the fairest Members that I have ever seen in this House, and certainly one of the most compassionate. It seems to me we are talking sort of at different levels over and each other on different issues here. Whether one is for or against the death penalty, I think most people would agree that this is not a debate on whether or not there are endless appeals and there should be limits for the kinds of the appeals that are going on and things of that nature. I think you could find some general agreement on all sides here. The question really is this: Supposing somebody has been found guilty and is on death row, who has been convicted and suddenly some evidence does appear that did not exist; there are all sorts of scientific things now, and suppose you and I and somebody with the wisdom of Solomon, maybe even Jerry Solomon----
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the complexities of the death penalty and the implications of new evidence in a House debate.
Share
More from Gary Ackerman
There is corruption everywhere. I think on a scale of all the nations, 1 to 184, I think Sweden or Finland is number one with the least corruption and North Korea is 184.
My inquiry is: Is there a motion before the House or is there a stunt before the House? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
The Obama administration, wisely in my view, embraced sanctions as a critical element of a comprehensive strategy.
I would divide the camp up into those who want to help the peace process, and then there is a small splinter group of people who are so blinded in their support, trip over themselves, that say we should do everything we have to do to help…





