Follow the Leader?
by Jermaine Smith

The United States prides itself on being an international power and leading the world in its pursuit of justice and democracy for all. However, we often carry out injustices and employ a flawed democratic system here in our own country.

The Supreme Court recently postponed the execution of a death row inmate in the state of Texas. The prisoner was to become the 300th execution in the state since 1976, the year the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment. In Texas and many other U.S. states, particularly in the southeastern region, a murder conviction often carries with it a sentence of death.

Capital punishment has an extensive history in the United States. From firing squads and hanging to gas chambers and lethal injections, the nation has spent the larger portion of its history ensuring severe criminals meet their demise. The majority of the nation utilizes the death penalty, citing “an eye for an eye.” Since 1976, over 700 people have met death in the 38 states that use capital punishment. However, U.S. policy regarding capital punishment is atypical compared to many of its international peers.

Many major world powers do not utilize capital punishment in their justice systems. The reasoning behind this is simple: the death of one does not justify the death of another, or simply the basic principle that two wrongs do not make a right. Some abroad and in the U.S. make the case that the death penalty is barbaric and a better alternative is life imprisonment. More still point out the importance of a costly mistake, such as a false conviction leading to an unmerited death.

For those whom this argument does not sway, there are deficiencies in the system the U.S. employs. Opponents of capital punishment often stress scores of wrongly accused exonerated individuals as well as the defective system that convicts them. The justice systems in some states offer flawed evidence, assuming the courts provide evidence at all. We cannot justify even 100 warranted deaths if just one groundless murder comes at the order of our government.

Race is an issue when concerning the death penalty. While a larger number of death row inmates are white, these inmates present a much smaller percentage of their population than do African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities. Murder convictions, the primary conviction of most death row inmates, involving mixed races as the perpetrator and victims (black perpetrator and white victim, for example) are most likely to result in a death conviction.

Another concern is the availability of good representation for defendants with little or no money. Often times a wealthier defendant (read: O.J. Simpson, Ray Lewis, Jayson Williams) can buy their way out of a potential conviction by the use of monetary might. This imbalance reveals yet another startling discovery: the majority of inmates on death row are poor. Currently, there are over 3,000 prisoners awaiting execution.

The staggering costs of supporting inmates serving life imprisonment serves as the driving force behind the reinstatement of capital punishment, though it’s often more expensive to conduct a death penalty trial than to fund life in prison. Many governors, including former governor and current president George Bush, believe we can most effectively lower these costs by reducing the number of prisoners we support. Obviously less prisoners on death row mean a lower cost.

However, perhaps we should begin with streamlining the costs for luxuries provided to inmates. Some penitentiaries’ excessive budgets are due to unnecessary amenities rather than the sheer number of inmates. A cut back on libraries, gym equipment, television and other items not critical to incarceration would go far in stretching the bankbook. Furthermore, fewer death penalty trials will prevent states from spending beyond their means.

In addition, numerous inmates on death row around the country are not U.S. citizens. Several nations charge that the United States is violating an international agreement which allows a prisoner in a foreign country to request assistance from their home countries. It is in our interest to comply with such an agreement, considering the average expense of each prisoner is $50,000 or more. Placing these costs on a prisoner’s home country is reasonable and preferred over requiring U.S. citizens to foot the bill.

Our criminal justice system costs the country money and lives. The world is slowly phasing out the death penalty, and this time the U.S. must follow instead of attempting to lead. Capital punishment does not belong in an advanced society that boasts of its status as a world authority. An eye for eye may appear to equalize, but in the end, it does nothing but leave the whole world blind.

It’s All About The Benjamins
by Anna Schwartz

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife is a ketchup billionaire. Candidate John Edwards made his fortune exploiting our great nation’s court system. Joe Lieberman has built up a substantial war chest in the Senate, and maintains support from the 2000 Gore constituency. Dick Gephardt believes he can cull money from organized labor. Al Sharpton (though he shouldn’t last through Iowa) has decades of non-public service fundraising under his belt.

Each of these candidates boasts the funds to run imposing primary campaigns, and once one of them (read: Kerry) has won the nomination, Democrats will rally with their wallets for the noble cause of toppling Bush.

The question is, why should money matter?

What happened to letting the best candidate win?

The McCain-Feingold bill may have been a respectable, if insufficient, effort at reform. Nevertheless it has not had a significant impact on campaign finance, because of its countless loopholes. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) declared some elements of the 1974 Federal Election Commission Act Amendments unconstitutional, and the McCain-Feingold bill, (ironically signed into law by President Bush), avoided the realm of constitutionality entirely. The concern that Buckley v. Valeo addressed was whether these amendments, which limited spending in several areas in addition to total contributions, were a violation of Americans’ rights to free speech.

The Federal fund matching program, begun in 1974, has proven ineffective because candidates can opt out - like Herr Bush in 2000, who had enough money from his various business dealings to easily spend in excess of the limit for matching.

Further limits to campaign contributions will wreak havoc on the current American political system. What would Congressmen do without special interests to represent? Politicians want to keep their institutions in tact-they are self-interested (not in a pejorative sense) and will not pass a law to undermine a system from which they benefit.

A different approach is necessary - one that has a chance of gaining Congressional support. This policy is the limitation of campaigning costs, specifically the costs for television advertisements. Instead of guaranteeing equal cost for advertisements but not specifying at what price (as the current system does), advertising should charge a fixed minimum for all candidates. This type of law would discourage bad candidates whose only chance of winning comes from deep pockets, and would encourage fair competition. Isn’t that what democracy is all about?

Obviously this plan has its flaws: primarily that television networks would be loath to agree to lose the revenue, and lobbies that represent them would push against the bill in Congress. With the precedent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which gave media conglomerates free reign to establish near-monopolies, a bill proposing that the media lose revenue will not fare well. Nevertheless, the airwaves belong to the people - not to the corporations - and the dearth of Public Service Announcements in recent years is indicative of how little public service media conglomerates actually do these days. This plan would foil the tyranny of the corporation.

This arrangement allows PACs, corporations and special interests groups to exercise their rights of free speech and donate money to the candidates, but the fixed cost of advertising would reduce total campaign costs, encouraging candidates to opt for federal fund matching rather than draining the federal budget. Congressmen and Senators would spend less time building war chests and more time performing their duties. Elected office would be more accessible to those who were not in the top tax brackets. Best of all, the current system would not have to be dismantled - fundraising would still occur, but there would be less zeros on the cheques.

The time to implement substantial reforms is not now, as it will be without support in the Republican-majority Congress, but in 2004 when the likelihood of a liberal backlash is high. Other G8 countries, such as Japan, limit the amount of time that candidates can campaign - but Americans love the horse race too much for that proposal to bode well.

Politics and money have always and will always be intertwined in America. But they don’t necessarily have to be sullied by the relationship.