Twice over the last few weeks, I sat down intending to write an iScot column about how betrayed I felt by Joe Biden, who I voted for in 2020 specifically because he had committed to putting an end to the death penalty at federal level. That wasn't the only reason I voted for him, I was also voting to stop Donald Trump, but nevertheless it was an absolute dealbreaker for me - if Biden hadn't made that pledge I would have voted for a third party candidate.
Of course technically Biden couldn't abolish the federal death penalty without Congress passing a law to that effect, but what he certainly had the ability to do was commute all federal death sentences and put an end to the physical infrastructure of federal death row. Not only did he fail to do that, but his government continued to seek the imposition of the death penalty in new cases. I should have expected no less of a betrayal from a politician who infamously sponsored legislation in the 1990s that vastly increased the scope of the federal death penalty.
But even after Donald Trump was elected, there was still some talk that Biden, now that he had little left to lose, might use the transitional period to belatedly make good on his promise - and in so doing save some inmates from almost certain death, because Trump is hellbent on resuming capital punishment on an industrial scale. What Biden actually did in the early days and weeks after the election was pardon his own son Hunter, approve hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of arms sales to Israel to allow the genocide to continue unabated, and give Ukraine the green light to attack Russia with long-range missiles, thus risking a world war. It was quite clear, it seemed to me, where Biden's warped priorities lay when freed of any constraints, and that was why I almost felt safe in going ahead and writing my intended column.
But not quite, and I ended up writing the column about a completely different subject, because I couldn't totally exclude the possibility that an announcement would still be made before Trump's inauguration. To my surprise, that's what happened, although as always with Biden there was a sting attached. He commuted the death sentences of the vast majority of federal death row prisoners, but made three exceptions, claiming this was consistent with his adminstration's moratorium on the death penalty "except in cases of terrorism or hate-motivated mass murder". But that wasn't what you promised when you stood for election, was it, Joe? You promised an end to federal capital punishment without any mention of exceptions. Abolition can't be achieved without applying the principle to even the worst of the worst offenders. Retentionism for only terrorism is still retentionism.
That said, in other countries a drastic reduction in the number of executions has eventually led to abolition, so I suppose I shouldn't be churlish. As far as I'm aware this is an unprecedented step from any US President (although one or two state governors have done something similar), it will save dozens of real people from being executed, and it removes from death row around 1.7% of all condemned prisoners in the US, which is a non-trivial percentage.
In my opinion Biden has been one of the worst presidents of all-time, and I hope that's reflected in the historical rankings that are sometimes published. I'm not interested in the endless sneering over the decline in his health - I'm talking simply about the total moral bankruptcy of his administration, as exemplified by its facilitation of genocide in Gaza. Nevertheless, I will grudgingly accept that the commutations represent a very modest mitigation of that appalling record.
He's just Biden his time. Surely we'll see the 46th president show his true colors any day now…
ReplyDeleteColours, surely?
DeleteIndependence for Scotland.
ReplyDeleteDe facto referendum NOW.
DeleteWhat’s a de facto referendum?
DeleteIt's been patiently explained to you about seventeen billion times, KC, so if you still haven't grasped the concept, maybe the best thing is to just watch it in action.
DeleteDE FACTO NOW
DeleteAgree 100%
DeleteA de facto now!
DeleteSo does that mean the SNP can announce one at anytime?
You're learning, KC. Good to see you learning.
DeleteThat doesn’t make it any less nonsense as we will see if it is attempted
DeleteThe irony is, of course, that we can tell what you fear most by looking at what you spend the most time trying to discredit. You undoubtedly fear the de facto option and think that's how independence is most likely to be achieved.
DeleteAnd you're right.
Better to announce at the time of the election.
ReplyDeleteNo, the way you call a de facto now is to call an election now.
DeleteDE FACTO NOW
Agree fully.
DeleteAnd how is that done under Holyrood rules? Just wait until the election date.
DeleteThe SNP need to call a de facto referendum NOW.
DeleteFor God’s sake, we need to get independence done, waiting til the next election is not an option. We need independence now.
Like the attempt at pivoting your content James. It’s old advice but the Farmers say.. Do what you are good at and don’t worry about the man next door.
ReplyDeleteSwinney needs to show some guts and call a de facto referendum NOW.
ReplyDeleteClearly we have the numbers, support is now way over 50%.