A person is executed. Why is he notable? Well, first off, a former actor turned governor (through somewhat crooked means) had to decide whether or not to commute his sentence. Second, he is a celebrity of sorts, a former gang leader with celebrity (including the person who played him in the movie) defenders. Third, he harks from a state where -- though it has the most people and fairly many serious murders -- rather few people are executed. Fourth, there is some evidence that he redeemed himself (even if -- as Arnold noted -- he dedicated a book to the wrong person) as a sort of anti-gang violence sort guy. And, though no one seems to pay too much attention to it, he claims to be innocent of his heinous ("pointless" -- there was a point, Arnold -- to the degree violent crime has one). Oh, he also has a cute nick name.
Rachel Maddow -- filling in for Al Franken while he is overseas on a goodwill mission to entertain the troops -- says she is against the death penalty because people like Arnold have the final say in such cases. In other words, any system that let's say smucks like this have the power of life and death -- if we can avoid it -- is simply f-ed up. You know, like war in the Middle East (though she is against that too ... at least the current one). I only listened to half of the discussion, so am not sure if some caller (she unlike Al takes them) asked if she would accept some truly intelligent pardon commission sort of thing. She did note that even if the death penalty was carried out without fault -- but I'd add that we have so many constitutional securities because the system is full with problems -- she would be against it for this reason.
I am sympathetic. The execution of a human being, especially a citizen (as an aside, the Supremes accepted a couple cases to determine the contours of the right of aliens to have their countries notified), is a horrible thing.* The system just has too many problems -- mistake, racism, classism, etc. -- to say that we carry them out with true due process of law. But, mistake or racism is not really my issue. My issue is the arbitrary nature of it all. We do not just kill the worst of the worst, and we do not consistently kill even them. It is not just a matter of killing the innocent -- it is killing only some of the guilty, meaning that we arbitrarily choose who is guilty "enough" to execute. So, even if -- and this won't happen for any time soon -- the system was generally fair, the death penalty is unjust.
And, focusing on this guy -- who did not get to be the 1000th executed after Gregg v. Georgia ended the short moratorium enacted by the Supreme Court -- is part of the problem. There are others who were executed who warrant our tears, or dry distaste and displeasure at the injustice of the system, more than this guy. Yes, he has a name. But, so do the others unnamed except in brief AP stories or local accounts. As a generally faceless person in the "system" (life) myself, I have sympathy for those others. Oh, this sort of delayed execution -- something like two decades in this case -- rankles as well. A sort of carrying out of last generation's desires.
But, the arbitrary selection is really my bottom line ... add all the other stuff, often key in individual cases ... this still rankles the most. And, selective clemency only furthers the point ... along with a ton of other things.
---
* All the same, in various cases, the treatment of those detained in our prisons is more hard to imagine than the lethal execution of the subset of truly odious -- as compared to run of the mill odious -- such as long term sentences in hellholes for consumption of drugs. The amount of time we waste -- including opposing the damn thing -- on the death penalty alone (given its minimum value) warrants ending it. Time, money, emotional energy pushing for its abolition.