It recently came out that Barack Obama lied when, as a candidate in 2008, he said he opposed same sex marriage. He was for it from the getgo, as almost everyone around him knew. But it would have posed electoral problems for him to tell the truth, so he didn't. He correctly calculated that, at the time, lying would bring in more votes.
This revelation will come as a surprise to very few people. This is, after all, the same man who, also for political gain, assured us that, "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance," knowing as he spoke that this was false. Both the premises and the specific requirements of Obamacare made it certain that millions would lose their insurance, which they did.
For purposes of this blog, the question arises whether Obama is also lying when he says he supports the death penalty. And make no mistake, this is indeed his stated position when campaigning in his home state:
I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are extraordinarily heinous crimes, terrorism, the harm of children, in which it may be appropriate. Obviously we've had some problems in this state, in the application of the death penalty and that's why a moratorium was put in place and that's why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in making sure that we overhauled it, death penalty system that was broken. For example, passing the first in the nation videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. We have to have this ultimate sanction for certain circumstances in which the entire community says this is beyond the pale.
Is that what he actually thinks, or will that position, like his opposition to gay marriage, go over the side of the boat for political and/or ideological reasons?
The NYT raised justified doubts on that score last year when Obama ordered a nationwide "policy review" of the death penalty's application. To be sure, Obama reiterated his support for capital punishment, such as it is:
"The individual who was subject to the death penalty had committed heinous crimes, terrible crimes," he said of the Oklahoma inmate. "And I've said in the past that there are certain circumstances in which a crime is so terrible that the application of the death penalty may be appropriate -- mass killings, the killings of children."
The problem is that the Leftist ideological baggage Obama regularly carries with him strongly suggests that his opposition to abolition has about the same staying power as his opposition to gay marriage, namely, zero or asymptotic to zero.
Does this mean an announcement of change in is the offing?
Certainly it could, but I doubt it for two reasons. First, although Obama has grave doubts about America's right to moral confidence and resolve (see, e.g., the apology tour), political expedience will probably continue to trump what used to be called principle. The politics of the death penalty is very different from the politics that surrounds gay marriage: Gay marriage is now supported by a healthy majority, but continuation of the death penalty is supported by an even bigger majority. The electoral standing of Democrats has taken a major hit in the six years of Obama's presidency (the Party's representation in Congress is now at an 80-year low), and there have to be serious doubts about how much more damage Obama is willing to inflict on his political allies.
Second, and more important in my view, the Age of YouTube makes abolition of the death penalty much harder than it used to be. When pictures of hostages being burned to death, and others having their heads sawed off, are on your computer right in front of your face; and when the grotesque, blood-and-body-parts-everywhere scene from the Boston Marathon bombing is right there behind it, opposing the only punishment that even remotely fits becomes viscerally all but impossible.
I have my differences with Obama, but he is still a civilized man. I simply do not believe a civilized man could think a jail sentence, no matter what its length, fits for such mind-numbing, Dark Ages savagery.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, CJLF takes no position on same-sex marriage.
I think you are suggesting with your final sentence that any and all abolitionists are necessarily uncivilized people. Is this your claim, Bill?
"I think you are suggesting with your final sentence that any and all abolitionists are necessarily uncivilized people. Is this your claim, Bill?"
When I want to make a claim, I will, as is my habit, do so in unambiguous wording -- wording I will choose, not you or anyone else.
Nor do I think for a minute you actually suspect I'm claiming that "abolitionists are necessarily uncivilized people," which I certainly am not. The more natural, less slanted, and the correct, interpretation is that I'm claiming abolitionists believe the law's punishment should not fit the crime. That is hardly uncivilized. But it's quite bizarre.
I have had prominent abolitionists make exactly that claim. Their view is that a death sentence does indeed fit the crime, but a punishment fitting the crime should not be imposed for other reasons.
The abolitionist problem -- or one of their problems -- is that they understand saying in haec verba that "the punishment should not fit the crime" puts one foot in the bucket. That the punishment SHOULD fit the crime is one of the most universally accepted maxims in criminal law.
I will add this as well. One feature that's getting really old in your responses to me is your asking a question that puts words in my mouth, knowing as you write it that it's intended for no purpose other than to be annoying and diversionary.
That is certainly true of your response here. It was also true when you claimed in an earlier thread not to know what it means to say that "the punishment should fit the crime." The idea of "fitting the crime," or proportionality, is elementary in criminal law and is, in fact, repeatedly employed by those pushing "sentencing reform." The notion that a Harvard Law grad doesn't know what it means is absurd.
The reason you pretended there's some big mystery about it was to enable you to filibuster, rather than answer, the question whether a mere jail sentence, no matter its length, fits the unbelievably grotesque crime of burning to death a hostage.
So I'll ask again.
Does a mere jail sentence, no matter its length, fit the unbelievably grotesque crime of burning to death a hostage?
Yes or no.
I will of course welcome any length of explanation, qualification or discussion you care to add, AFTER a "yes" or "no" answer.
I think your comment about YouTube and the death penalty is interesting and I tend to agree. Along those lines, do you gave an opinion on public executions (whether broadcast live or available after the fact on YouTube)? One possible benefit of recordings could help the public see executions are not tortious as sometimes claimed.
Matt --
I tend to oppose televised executions because they unavoidably portray the killer as the victim -- which is certainly what he seems like at that instant, surrounded with guards and strapped to a table.
The problem with that snapshot is that it captures the single most atypical moment out of what is likely to have been years and years leading up to it. All those other eight zillion moments are certain to present a less sympathetic picture -- to put it mildly -- and one that will give a fuller (and therefore more honest) presentation of how the moment of execution came to be.
Let's take for example the recent hostage burning case, as it has been much in the news. The people who did the burning started off by joining ISIS (I don't know how many weeks or months ago). They are certain to have practiced techniques for capturing and holding future burning victims.
Let's see TV shots of that.
They are certain to have practiced (and them employed) brutal interrogation techniques on the Jordanian man they killed.
Let's see TV shots of that.
They are certain to have held their captives in crude and miserable conditions, perhaps with daily beatings and starvation.
Let's see TV shots of that.
They prepared the hostage for execution by soaking his jumpsuit in gasoline and dragging him out to the cage.
Let's see TV shots of that.
Did they taunt him as the "big event" was coming up? Did they force him to make some cruel, self-abasing tape begging for mercy and praising Allah?
I don't know, but, if so, let's see pictures of that too.
My point is simple. I have no objection to showing the whole story, because "the whole story" is another term for "the truth." What I want to avoid is putting on the air the skewed, tiny sliver of the story in which the killer appears most sympathetic.
I agree 100%. I think putting the whole story out there (including showing the execution on video) would strengthen support for the death penalty as people would see executions are not torture and that the offender deserves his fate.
I'd also like to see the entire case files publicly accessible so people could see that those on death row get due process times 10. I think this is really important as I've taken a bit of time to read up on some of the so-called "innocent people executed" and on first glance it might seem that a certain person was innocent but usually after further review it is obvious that isn't the case (with one notable exception in my mind not to be named until the appropriate thread).
The more the public knows the better.
Bill, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, nor am I trying to be "annoying and diversionary." Rather, I am taking a hard look at the words you use and trying my best to understand their meaning and their implications. I am sorry if my effort to scrutinize closely what you say comes off poorly in these settings, and I will continue to try to avoid being off-putting in these discussions.
Now, to your question: I personally do not think a "jail sentence" fits "the unbelievably grotesque crime of burning to death a hostage." But, personally, I also do not think a lethal injection would "fit" this grotesque crime, either. The only concept of "fit" that ever really made sense to me was the classic biblical admonition: "You must show no pity for the guilty! Your rule should be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." With that concept of fit in mind, I think the only fitting punishment here would be seemingly be execution by burning at the stake.
In a prior thread, I believe you explained that certain concepts of civilization and humanity in the United States would preclude us from seeking this type of truly fitting punishment. I am not sure I would agree if I subscribed, in any significant way, to the notion that US punishment schemes should be principally focused on trying to impose "fitting" punishments. But, in my own assessments of punishments, I do not generally use vague normative terms like "fit" or "proportionality" because I really have very little idea of what these terms can possibly mean in the vast majority of cases, especially controversial ones.
Was it "fit" or "proportionate" that Scooter Libby was initially sentenced to 30 months for his crime of conviction or was his sentence only fitting after he got, upon your advice, his prison term commuted? And is the "fit" story the same for Victor Rita, who was convicted of essentially the same crime but served 3 years in federal prison?
What is a "fit" or "proportionate" for someone who drinks and drives? For someone who sells a large amount marijuana in violation of federal law but in compliance with state law? For someone who shoplifts some videotapes from Wal-mart? For someone who possesses shotgun shells in violation of federal law? And on and on I could go.
I do not have answers to these questions because I have never understood what vague normative terms like "fit" or "proportionality" really mean in real cases. I also do not understand, if "fit" or "proportionality" are primary punishment concerns, why prosecutors regularly give immunity or huge sentencing breaks to very culpable offenders if/when they cooperate to pursue other offenders. I also do not understand, if "fit" or "proportionality" are primary punishment concerns, whether and how the punishments given (and not given) to other like offenders should influence what is properly considered fitting.
I am not trying to be cheeky or "annoying and diversionary" with these comments. I am just trying to explain why the oft-stated discussion of punishment "fitting" crime never helped me understand what a punishment in a difficult case should be. I will readily say that I do understand the instinct that a society should use its most severe punishments in response to the most severe crimes, but I do not think abolitionists dispute that claim. They just assert that in a civilized society as they see it, the most severe punishment should be LWOP not death. I know you disagree, but I continue to wonder if you have any respect for this distinct normative perspective.
Doug --
Thank you for your response. It raises issues of sufficient import that I am going to address it in my next entry.