Gov. Death
August
7, 1999
George
W. Bush has presided over an execution in Texas almost every two weeks
since his election. Why isn't that a campaign issue?
By
Christopher Hitchens
In rather
the same way as new movies are now "reviewed" in terms of their first weekend
gross, new candidates have become subject to evaluation by the dimensions
of their "war chest." This silly archaic expression defines other equally
vapid terms like "credibility" and "electability" and "name recognition,"
which become subliminally attached to it.
In many cases,
the crude cash-flow measure is as useful in deciding on a politician as
it is in making a choice at the multiplex; you might as well see the worthless
movie that everyone else has seen, or express an interest in the unbearably
light "front runner," so as not to be left out of the national "conversation."
The hidden
costs, alas, include a complete erosion of the critical faculties. I am
as enthralled as the next person by the sheaves of money assembled for
George Walker Bush. (What did he do to be shorn at birth of his Herbert?)
But I'm even more fascinated by the fact that, as I write, he is about
to sign his 93rd death warrant. There was an execution on the day of his
inauguration as governor of Texas, which I don't count, and there has been
one every two and a half weeks or so ever since.
Part of a governor's
job is to review capital cases. The staggering pace of executions in Texas
means that Bush has either a) been doing little else but reviewing death
sentences or b) been signing death warrants as fast as they can be put
in front of him.
This may also
be helping him gain some of that much needed "foreign policy experience"
about which the pundits have made the occasional frown. State officials
from the Philippines and Guatemala have been touring lethal chambers in
the United States as part of their research into improved methods, and
according to Amnesty International a Filipino official was allowed to watch
a killing in Texas in 1997.
The thorny
question of race -- always such a minefield for the aspiring Republican
candidate -- also gets a workout by this means. Many people remember the
case of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again pickax-murderess who showed --
at least by the standard of Christian fundamentalism -- signs of having
been rehabilitated. Gov. Bush snuffed her in February of last year, over
the protests of Pat Robertson and others.
But had he
commuted her sentence, he would have been faced with executing a black
woman, Erica Sheppard, who was next in line on the female death row and
had foregone her appeal. Spare a photogenic white girl and then kill a
defiant black one? Better to do away with both and avoid the row altogether.
(Sheppard has since recovered her determination to appeal, and recently
took part in a protest against the strip-searching of female inmates in
front of male guards, another distinguishing feature of the Texas criminal
justice system.)
Then there's
the aspect that touches "communities of faith," or whatever you choose
to call them. Gov. Bush has proposed that the social safety net be maintained
by religious charities, and he hopes to make these points of light his
auxiliaries in ending such welfare as we still know. It's the battiest
soup-kitchen scheme since Theodore Roosevelt discussed handing over American
social welfare to the Salvation Army.
But it runs
up against a potentially interesting conflict: at least 28 major religious
groups in this country have declared against capital punishment. Might
not now be the time to ask them if they will agree to ladle charity on
behalf of a man who conducts photo-op and opinion-poll executions?
Some Lone Star
State cases for your perusal: An openly homosexual named Calvin Burdine
was sentenced to death after being given a court-appointed lawyer who referred
to gay men as "queers" and "fairies," and who fell asleep during the trial.
In 1998, two Texas defendants were executed for crimes committed when they
were 17. (That same year, of the 70 juveniles on death row in the United
States, Texas was holding 26.)
Then there's
the case of Joseph Cannon and Robert Carter, who suffered head injuries
in infancy, had been subject to lurid physical abuse later, and tested
at an abysmal level for mental retardation. Texas killed them anyway, violating
the accepted international standard that prohibits the death penalty for
the underage, as well as the presumption that it is wrong to slay the mentally
ill or incompetent.
You probably
don't want to know how perfunctory was the presentation of the state's
evidence, how 10th-rate was the performance of the court-appointed defense,
and how wretched was the end. (The humane "lethal injection" needle blew
out of Joseph Cannon's arm as the "procedure" began: The witnesses were
hurried from the room and then brought back to view a second and more conclusive
try.)
Perhaps you
wonder if capital punishment is unevenly applied, as respects race and
class, in the state of Texas. Wonder no longer: Just read the Amnesty International
report "Killing With Prejudice" (322 Eighth Avenue, NY, NY 10001. $6) Finally,
the man who is awaiting execution as I write -- Larry Robison -- is a paranoid
schizophrenic who, along with his family, asked repeatedly for treatment
of his unstable condition before cracking up. The state which failed him
in the first instance is now stepping in, at vast expense, to warehouse
him on death row and to snuff him on the taxpayers' dime.
Yet most people
can still mention only two things about George Walker Bush -- his extreme
opulence and his commitment to "compassionate conservatism." This is the
story, and the media are sticking to it. Every time I get on the radio
or TV, I mention his assembly-line execution policy, and every time I do
so I get treated as if I had developed Tourette's syndrome in church. Let
that go, and on to the next question.
Yet Bush's
addiction to the death cult actually touches every important aspect of
what could be described as his "politics." Unfortunately, the commitment
of President Clinton, Al Gore and Bill Bradley to the same pro-death penalty
politics prevents it from surfacing as the issue it deserves to be.
About the
writer
Christopher
Hitchens is a regular contributor to Vanity Fair, the Nation and Salon
News.
|