You Only Die Once

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 19^th 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.