|
| | |
  Recent commentary from National Journal: Media: Drama Club, by William Powers (June 14, 2000) In New York, the media's tried-and-true script provides plenty of hisses and cheers for Hillary and Rick. Social Studies: The Microsoft Case -- Fair, Necessary, and Totally Random, by Jonathan Rauch (June 14, 2000) Let's be clear with ourselves about what the law is doing in the Microsoft case: whistling in the dark. Media: Off the Money, by William Powers (June 7, 2000) Those performing stock analysts who can rattle markets everywhere sometimes have dirty little secrets. Political Pulse: Al's Campaign Can Be Born Again, by William Schneider (June 7, 2000) Gore's Los Angeles convention speech this summer will be the defining moment of his political career. Legal Affairs: Gore and the Buddhist Temple -- a Phony Scandal?, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (June 7, 2000) The charge that Gore knowingly went to the temple to shake down monks and nuns is demonstrably false. More from National Journal. Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. |
 Political Pulse:Growing Doubts About the Death Penalty June 14, 2000 For years, the death penalty has been the ultimate litmus test in American politics. If you opposed the death penalty, you were so far outside the mainstream, you may as well have been from Mars. That's why Gov. George W. Bush's decision last week to recommend a reprieve in a Texas death penalty case is significant. It's a signal that the politics of capital punishment is changing. In 1988, the death penalty killed Michael Dukakis. Remember when Dukakis was asked in a 1988 presidential debate whether he would favor the death penalty for someone who brutally raped and murdered his wife? The Democratic nominee gave a bloodless, legalistic answer: "I've opposed the death penalty nearly all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." Dukakis might have gotten away with opposing the death penalty as a matter of moral or religious conviction. But his opposition on practical grounds enabled Republicans to depict him as an elitist liberal totally out of touch with mainstream America. In 1992, Bill Clinton's support for the death penalty, more than any other issue, signaled to voters that he was a New Democrat. The death penalty became a signature issue for New Democrats. In her first statewide race in California, Dianne Feinstein established her credentials with an ad that showed Democrats booing her as she told the state party convention, "Yes, I support the death penalty. The people of this state want to be protected, and I aim to protect them." In Texas, Democrat Mark White ran a television ad in 1990 that showed him strolling in front of gigantic mug shots of criminals executed while he was governor. Bush has overseen 131 executions in Texas since 1995 -- more than any other governor in the nation. He, too, is unapologetic. "There is no doubt in my mind," Bush has said, "that each person who has been executed in our state was guilty of the crime committed." Why has the death penalty been such a powerful issue? Look at public opinion. From the 1950s to the 1960s, according to the Gallup Poll, public support for the death penalty in murder cases actually dropped. By 1966, it was below a majority. Then, support for capital punishment rose steadily, reaching a peak of 80 percent in 1994. Why? Because the 1960s, '70s, and '80s saw a sharp and frightening rise in the nation's crime rate. Since 1994, however, public support for the death penalty has been falling. It hasn't collapsed; two-thirds of Americans still say they support capital punishment. But there are signs of wavering. Why? For one thing, the crime rate has been dropping. There are also growing doubts -- sometimes from surprising sources -- about the fairness with which the penalty is applied. Christian conservative leader Pat Robertson, for one, said in a television interview last month: "What's happened is an unequal application of justice that weighs heavily on minorities, African-Americans particularly." Probably the most important reason behind the shift in public opinion: more and more news reports of death sentences being reversed following DNA tests. The implication is that miscarriages of justice may be common. "To the extent that DNA can prove for certain innocence or guilt, I think we need to use DNA," Bush said. Because of DNA evidence, Illinois had to release more wrongly convicted people from death row over the past decade than it has executed. Republican Gov. George H. Ryan has imposed a moratorium on executions pending further study. "We need to have some answers before we put any innocent people to death," Ryan said. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles has asked Gov. Gray Davis for a similar moratorium. In April, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a bill calling for a nationwide moratorium on executions while a commission reviews death penalty policies and procedures. "Let us pause to examine why innocent people have been condemned to death row," Feingold said. In May, the New Hampshire Legislature -- one chamber Republican, the other split -- voted to abolish the death penalty. Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, one of those New Democrats, vetoed the measure. Now Bush has recommended a 30-day reprieve to a death row inmate in Texas. Is that good politics? The presumptive Republican nominee does advertise himself as a "compassionate conservative." But Bush insists his decision has nothing to do with compassion; he doesn't want to convey the impression that he's changed his convictions. Bush says he's granting the reprieve on procedural grounds -- because better DNA tests are available, and because he wants to make sure that there's no doubt the condemned person is guilty. But it's the procedures that a lot of voters question. How reliable are they? And how fair? When you see ardent death penalty supporters such as Bush raise those questions, you know the death penalty debate is changing. In fact, the death penalty may not even be a litmus test any more. Bush is reported to be considering former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri to be his running mate. Danforth, an ordained minister, is strongly anti-abortion. But he has also repeatedly opposed the death penalty. If Danforth goes on the GOP ticket, it will be interesting to see which of those two positions turns out to be more controversial. What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. All material copyright © 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 | |
|
|
