bound to obey and serve ([info]elfundeb) wrote,
@ 2005-11-07 14:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: distressed
Entry tags:capital punishment, politics

Election Day and Capital Punishment
I don't post a lot of political content, but it's election day tomorrow, with a photo-finish gubernatorial race expected here in Virginia (though it's an off-year for Congress, I live in one of the two states that thinks its governors shouldn't have coattails).

Naturally we have been inundated with tedious ads. Most of them are of the he-said, no-I-didn't variety, but I found one exchange deeply disturbing, and it continues to haunt me even though I've not seen the offending ads for at least a week.the ones descibed here really did make me ill. Basically, the Republican candidate Kilgore has dredged up relatives of executed criminals to appear in TV ads to proclaim that they don't trust the Democratic candidate to execute those convicted of the killing. Yes, that's right. They don't "trust" (their word) Kaine to kill people. I didn't like Kilgore before, but now I can't separate him from the message of retribution in these ads.

The Democratic candidate Yorrick Tim Kaine (yes, Ffordefans, that's right) is opposed to the death penalty. He is a Catholic, and his position avowedly reflects his faith. Yet he has had to produce response ads assuring that he will uphold the law regarding the death penalty in Virginia. ("Don't worry, good Republicans! I'm going to kill people because it's the law!")

The whole episode is especially troubling because of the history of the death penalty here. Virginia has executed more criminals than any other state (even Texas). Since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, Virginia has had the highest per capita rate of executions of any state in the U.S. By that measure, it is far ahead of Texas, which is cited frequently for having the most executions.

Virginia death-row convicts -- many of whom are poor and do not have access to legal counsel of their choice -- also have suffered from the most restrictive post-trial criminal procedure in the country. One of the reasons for this is that under Virginia criminal procedure, defendants have only 21 days after judgment to introduce new evidence. Evidence discovered later may not be considered, even if it proves the defendant's innocence. It's the shortest time limit in the country (and even though it has been mitigated somewhat recently, it still exists), and it has resulted in the killing of innocent people.

In Virginia the death penalty may be considered whenever "special circumstances" are present -- which are very broad. Also, Virginia was happy to use it to execute people who were minors when the crime was committed (that's why sniper suspects John Muhammed and Lee Malvo were tried first in Virginia, not in Maryland where most of the sniper killings occurred) and the mentally retarded, until the Supreme Court said NO. (In the retardation case, using arcane determination rules, Virginia recently ruled that Atkins was not, in fact, mentally retarded. The ruling has been appealed.)

In short, the system was designed to produce convictions, not justice. (I won't even get into the rules for retaining and turning over potentially exculpatory evidence, which is a trap for the unwary defendant.)

I'm hoping that Kilgore's strategy will backfire. Kilgore's ads have been widely denounced as inaccurate in the press; Kaine's responses have been deemed to be factually correct. Moreover, it's a strategy that seems to be aimed at conservative, traditional Virginians, but the polls indicate that the race will be won or lost here in Northern Virginia, which is wealthier, more liberal, and more likely from someplace else where different rules apply.

Rant over.




(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]macloudt
2005-11-07 01:54 pm UTC (link)
I intensely dislike any type of smear campaign, but political ones always take the biscuit. Though I'm in southcentral Ontario I'm coming across these types of TV campaigns as well as New York state has some kind of elections coming up. When one comes on I switch the channel as I cannot stand them. Please keep us informed of your election results.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]elfundeb
2005-11-08 06:27 pm UTC (link)
I'm watching the returns as they come in, and I am cautiously optimistic. AP has called the race for Kaine, but I don't count my chickens until they hatch.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sageofgodalming
2005-11-09 04:46 am UTC (link)
Seems like he won by a convincing margin, though not a landslide.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]alhewison
2005-11-08 09:03 am UTC (link)
I hope that "justice" prevails - admittedly that's my idea of justice, not the law of the land!

I am also vehemently opposed to the Death Penalty, so perhaps that nails my views firmly to the mast. But surely, new evidence proving innocence should be worthy of submission wherever and whenever it's discovered? Am I too much of an idealist?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]elfundeb
2005-11-08 06:34 pm UTC (link)
Unfortunately, for some people, the process is more important than the truth. However, in the last year are so, the procedural rule was softened so that convicts can petition to have new DNA evidence reviewed. The catch is that it doesn't apply unless the defendant pleaded innocent. There's an actual case where a man was wrongly accused of a rape/murder, was convicted, and then was falsely charged with a second murder. Because the system had already failed him, he pleaded guilty to the second crime in order to get a lighter sentence. Later DNA evidence showed he was not guilty of either crime.

It's really sad. The premise of our justice system is that truth will prevail. But too often it does not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]joyliveshere
2005-11-08 10:15 am UTC (link)
I hate smear campaigns, and also ads which misrepresent issues, which AFAIC are in the same sleazy category. I hate the way these ads are designed to appeal to people's emotional reaction, with the assumption that most people aren't going to bother to look very closely at any candidate or issue, but just decide based on their feelings. Although much as I hate to admit it, that assumption is probably accurate.

The death penalty is one of the worst issues that way, although I think that more and more people seem to be looking at the reality of how flawed the justice system is, and that killing murderers is about revenge, not justice or decreasing crime.

Here in California there are a zillion ballot measures to vote on today (don't even get me started on the stupidity of ballot measures). The most controversial one would ban teenaged girls from getting an abortion without parental permission, and the ads for it all say "Protect Our Daughters." Amy saw a billboard for it with a photo of a young girl being led somewhere by a seedy-looking character. IOW, depicting legal abortion as equivalent to allowing bad men to lead your little baby girl astray. I mean, really . . . that's just stupid, but it certainly appeals to people's most basic feelings -- wanting to protect their children.

The abortion issue is SO difficult, emotionally, without confusing the issues. While I very much support any woman's right to choose what to do with her body, I can see why so many people are so opposed to abortion -- I agree that it is pretty horrible, and I would never counsel someone to have one without considering the alternatives.

But sometimes there are no alternatives, and it doesn't "Protect Our Daughters" to pretend there is. The thought of some teenaged girl, especially one who is the victim of incest or rape, (or even like most teenagers who get pregnant, statuatory rape) being forced to bear a child, is also horrible.

OK, I'll stop. I realize that this has gone from a rant about the death penalty to a rant about abortion, but that's the sort of thing that happens on election day. Blame Debbie, she started it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sageofgodalming
2005-11-08 03:09 pm UTC (link)
I hate the way these ads are designed to appeal to people's emotional reaction

*sigh*

They are so prevalent (we don't get ads much on political issues, but we get the emotional arguments) because they work.

For many years I was puzzled by the whole way in which election campaigns are carried on Don't they realise, I thought, that they are putting undecided people off? Everything came clear when I realised that campaigns are not about winning over the floating voter, but about persuading people who already support you to make the effort to get out and vote. The easiest way to do that, it seems, is to scare them with a caricature of the opposition.

So I feel that the electorate is mostly to blame for rewarding politicians who behave badly and punishing those who don't.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]elfundeb
2005-11-08 06:42 pm UTC (link)
Hey, I like a good abortion debate just as well as a good death penalty debate!

Amy saw a billboard for it with a photo of a young girl being led somewhere by a seedy-looking character. IOW, depicting legal abortion as equivalent to allowing bad men to lead your little baby girl astray.

Yeah, I'm sure the seedy guy was leading her down the back street to his illegal operation. Isn't that what happens when you restrict abortion?

While I very much support any woman's right to choose what to do with her body, I can see why so many people are so opposed to abortion -- I agree that it is pretty horrible, and I would never counsel someone to have one without considering the alternatives.

Making abortion illegal would be a fine thing to do in an ideal world . . . but in an ideal world people wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies, abusive parents or spouses, broken relationships, rape (including date rape) or any of the things that cause people to seek abortions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…