Three
months before the 1988 Presidential election, the Democratic candidate Michael
Dukakis was leading incumbent George H.W. Bush by 17 points. Then with a
blistering campaign accusing Dukakis as being “soft on crime” Bush began to
gain ground. In politics, instilling fear is the number one ground game for
those candidates who have little else to run on.
However,
in an early October 1988 debate, it was Michael Dukakis who drove the last and
fatal spike into his presidential ambition.
Throughout
his political career Dukakis had been an opponent of capital punishment. In
1984 his administration as governor struck down capital punishment in Massachusetts.
His action was used as validation for the accusation his being sympathetic with
criminals and unsympathetic with victims.
Sympathy
and retribution for victims of crime is at the top of our politician’s playbook
when it comes to the issue of crime. Dukakis, a consummate technocrat, somehow
missed that fact in politics 101.
In
the debate he was ask the first question of the debate: “If (your wife) Kitty was raped and murdered would you favor an
irrevocable death penalty for her killer”. He calmly answered “No I wouldn’t…” then went on to outline
his position on capital punishment. The debate might as well have been ended
after the first two minutes. Dukakis’ poll numbers plummeted straight through
to the election.
This
month California governor Gavin Newsom ordered a moratorium on capital
punishment, the best a Governor can do to stop the practice without
legislation. This action made National
news and opened again a topic that, along with other issues regarding incarceration,
had gone dark under the shadow of Donald Trump. It saw the light of day for at
least a week.
Newsom
received mixed reviews on this action even in a progressive state like
California. It is a shame, because capital punishment is the tip of a troubled
segment of our Nation’s Judiciary, namely criminal justice and the application
of incarceration. Its origins have pitiful historic roots and are steeped in
politics.
Governor
Jay Inslee of Washington State (currently a candidate for President) took on
the issue in 2014 beginning with a moratorium. However, he along with his
Attorney General spearheaded an effort to pass legislation and successfully defend the abolition
of Capital Punishment to the State Supreme Court. If he makes it to the
Democratic nomination (which I’d like to see), I hope he learns from Dukakis.
Michael
Dukakis’ answer back in 1988 should have been something like; “…if I was certain of the killer, given the
chance I would possibly strangle him with my bare hands, but if I were that
person, I in no way could rationally answer a question regarding Capital
Punishment for the Nation”.
Had
he given such an answer he would be expressing the reality that victims are the
last people to act as advisors on a topic which envelops their emotions.
Punishment is not dealt out by the victims in criminal court. The existence of
criminal justice is to objective ethics as determined (in a democracy) by the
people.
What
do we know?
We
know that the criminal justice system is flawed. Almost by definition it cannot
be perfect. We know it has been manipulated for political ends. Such was
flagrant during the Nixon Administration, but we saw it Clinton Administration
as well, and at different times under every modern presidency. Manufacturing
crime by targeted legislation and executive order has result in rates of
incarceration in the US, notably of African-Americans and other minorities,
that is nearly as appalling a stain on the US as 19th century
slavery.
Capital
Punishment crystallizes this entire blot on our history. The emotional
arguments about life and death pervade both sides of the issue. Religious
participants contradict themselves constantly.
Capital punishment as a deterrent has never come close to supporting a
position one way or another. Cruel and unusual considerations are a joke. The
more antiseptic we make the process of killing a human being, the crueler it
becomes. Want to do it quick and painless…shoot them in the back of the head.
No,
the only compelling argument is that the system is flawed. The evidence is
ample and convincing that innocent individuals have been executed, likely many.
There is no crime ever done by anyone greater than “the People” of this Nation
putting to death an innocent human being. Why?
The
insanity and ethical depravity of crime that exists on the fringes of human
behavior will always be a struggle to combat. Performing a collective crime to
satisfy a bloodlust and call it justice needs no struggle to end. And you cannot
selectively end it. To be absolutely sure such collective crime doesn’t occur
and is free from bias we need to end it completely.
That
is not to say that the incarceration of innocent people isn’t a crime as well.
It surely is. However, our criminal justice system has the potential for
correction, but not after death. You only die once.
I
would hope that Jay Inslee includes his laudable work on our criminal justice
system in his campaign. It’s risky political business in a nation where polling
says the desire for executions is high. However there is so much more regarding
our criminal justice system that needs to be done. I am certainly glad to see
someone with a track record that might get us there.