Matters of life and death

At the second presidential yawnfest, Jim Lehrer sat across the table from the two gentlemen who wish to be our next exalted leader. His present question was directed at George W. Bush, DC '68. He had asked the governor what he had done in Texas to curb hate crimes—i.e., violent acts committed against individuals because of their race or ethnicity. Bush, who previously had been sweating a lot and crinkling his face the way he so often does when attempting to think, suddenly perked up: "We got [a hate crime law] in Texas, and guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them?" He was getting excited, a not so subtle smirk creeping across his face. "They're going to be put to death. It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death." His smile quickly dropped, perhaps registering in his pea-sized brain that it was inappropriate to derive glee out of another's impending execution. And who said this man wasn't smart?

HYURA CHOI/YH

Now, usually when I see Bush's grinning face on TV, a part of me, perhaps a deep-seated animal bloodlust, wants to wring his neck. My face gets red, my pulse quickens, and my fists are clenched and sweaty. After that series of comments, even the most benevolent part of my soul wanted to jump through the television and tenderize his face. How dare he? First, he goes in front of 90 million viewers and displays his ignorance over his own state's laws (the hate crime law applies to more than just murder). Then, he has the audacity to derive visible pleasure and satisfaction out of telling the American public that he is responsible for three state-sanctioned murders? Is this supposed to show strong leadership?

It has become fashionable to write off the presidential race as a battle between Dumb and Dumber, two stuffed suits who often have to engage in 30 minutes of squabbling before they can even find an issue on which they differ. This trend is indeed disturbing, and one of the most unsettling similarities between the two presidential boobs is their stance on the death penalty. Now, most of us know Bush is an idiot (even conservatives admit to it when alone in a room). Some are even enlightened enough to realize he is a malicious idiot. But what does not get mentioned half as often is that Al Gore, on the issue of the death penalty, stands right next to Bush. The question of capital punishment is an important moral issue, and it should be given at least as much attention as abortion. Much has been made (though perhaps not enough) of the inherent racism present in the implementation of capital punishment. A far higher percentage of black than white murderers are put to death, often because the former cannot afford competent lawyers. Additionally, there is the fear that, through the inevitable flaws in our justice system, innocent men are convicted of murder and, subsequently, put to death.

I'd like to take this one further: even if the capital punishment system were not racist, and even if there were an absolute guarantee that no innocent man would be executed, it is still barbaric, immoral, and unjust. It comes down to a simple question of government power and human morality. The purpose of our government is to protect its citizens, either from foreign threats or the neighbor next door. The arrest and incarceration of murderers does that just fine. Capital punishment wishes to go to the next level and make a moral judgment on the worth of a person's life. Our government is saying, in fact, that there is a distinction between an "innocent life" and a "guilty life," and those possessing a "guilty life" do not deserve to live.

Excuse me, sirs. I've watched the Senate on C-SPAN long enough to see you're not the smartest bunch. I've seen enough live broadcasts of Baghdad being hit with American rockets to know that the government's hands are not clean of the blood of innocents. I've read enough newspapers to understand that the President of our country got a blowjob in the Oval Office, his penis probably dangling over the carpeted Presidential Seal. This is hardly the bunch of people who ought to be in the business of judging souls. But that is exactly what they have been doing, electrocuting and poisoning tens of thousands in the name of a moral authority that does not exist.

And now we have Gore and Bush, two presumptuous rich kids who have never seen poverty or despair in their lives, who always managed to stay on the right side of the law because of a coveted last name, and who both want to continue the practice of state-sanctioned murder. Bush's lack of a stand against such barbarity is expected, his aforementioned smirk having made it clear what kind of man he is. Gore's silence, in turn, is shameful but typical. He has time and time again backed down from issues of real importance, issues that used to be touted by the mainstream left but have since been dropped by the wayside in the interest of centrist pseudo-populism. If the Democratic Party cannot muster the cajones to speak out against such an egregious assault on human rights, then why the hell does it exist?

Gore says that he fights for the rights of all Americans. Bush says that he will bring compassion to government. I say they both can shove it.

Back to Opinion...