The surge in US executions is heavily concentrated in Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis seems to be using capital punishment for political gain. He significantly ramped up the rate of executions while running for president and then halted them after ending his campaign, suggesting the act is treated as a political strategy rather than a matter of justice.
Related Insights
The president's pardon power applies only to federal crimes. However, a president can issue a symbolic "pardon" for a supporter convicted on state charges. While legally void, this action serves as a powerful political signal to followers that the president stands with them, demonstrating a use of the pardon power for pure messaging.
Contrary to the perception of a peaceful death, lethal injection causes immense suffering. The initial sedative alters blood acidity, making the lungs feel like they are burning. A subsequent paralytic drug prevents the person from crying out, masking their agony while they silently scream in pain.
The presidential pardon system, intended as a tool for justice and clemency, has been perverted into a transactional mechanism. It now primarily serves the wealthy and politically connected, diverting resources and attention from its core mission of correcting injustices for ordinary people caught in a flawed system.
Despite public support for the death penalty being at a 50-year low, executions in America have surged. This is primarily because the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has ceased its former practice of issuing last-minute stays, effectively giving states a green light to proceed with executions without federal oversight or intervention.
The debate over deploying federal vs. state troops to fight crime is less about the tactic's effectiveness and more about political credit. Democratic governors like Wes Moore are now using their own state troops to achieve the same results, co-opting the policy to frame it as a state-level success.
When a politician suddenly makes a previously ignored issue intensely important, they are likely employing misdirection. The goal is to control the news cycle and public attention, either to distract from a more significant action happening elsewhere or to advance a hidden agenda unrelated to the stated crisis.
Seemingly irrational political decisions can be understood by applying a simple filter: politicians will say or do whatever they believe is necessary to get reelected. This framework decodes behavior better than assuming action is based on principle or for the public good.
Grisham's most pragmatic argument against the death penalty isn't moral but systemic: Texas has exonerated 18 people from death row. He argues that even if one supports the penalty in principle, one cannot support a system proven to make catastrophic errors. This "flawed system" framework is a powerful way to debate high-risk policies.
The historical progression of the death penalty in America, from hanging to lethal injection, was not primarily about making death more humane. Instead, each change was intended to make the act of execution more palatable and acceptable for the public to witness, effectively a public relations strategy.
The focus on pardoning political allies diverts legal resources and attention away from tens of thousands of ordinary inmates with legitimate clemency cases. This creates a two-tiered justice system where political loyalty is prioritized over rectifying potential miscarriages of justice for the general population.