California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s announcement on Nov. 5 of a universal clemency for the 548 people awaiting execution in his state marks an important turning point in American politics. It signals the end of law-and-order politics as a determining factor in the calculations of likely presidential contenders.
Newsom, an ambitious politician who is almost certain to run for president in 2028, reportedly weighed the impact that commuting hundreds of death sentences — including those of some notorious killers — would have on his political prospects.
That Newsom went ahead with the mass clemency tells us a lot about the salience of tough-on-crime positions in the present political moment. Opposition to capital punishment is no longer the death knell for people aspiring to be president.
This is not to say that Newsom won’t face backlash, either in California or elsewhere in the country, for his clemency decision. As the New York Times notes, “Those against Mr. Newsom’s move are expected to file a challenge arguing that he violated the law with a blanket commutation and that each case must be considered on individual merits.”
The Times reports that “Marc Klaas, the father of Polly Klaas, whose kidnapping and murder prompted an era of tough-on-crime policies in California, is livid at the idea of Mr. Newsom granting mercy to his daughter’s killer, or anyone else sentenced to death.” Klaas told the Times that he was aghast at Newsom “putting his energy” into commuting the death sentences of “serial killers, spree killers, cop killers, baby killers. We’re talking about absolutely the worst people in our society, without a doubt.”
“The act,” the Times continues, “could make him [Newsom] a more compelling candidate to liberal voters in a Democratic primary, but likely would open him to attacks in a general election.”
But Newsom’s opposition to capital punishment was already baked into his political brand. He had been very public in stating his view that it is immoral, and in taking dramatic anti-capital punishment actions, like imposing a moratorium on executions in his state in 2019.
Moreover, fear of crime is no longer a driving force in the way Americans vote. When voters in this week’s midterms were asked to rank six issues in order of importance, crime came in dead last, with only 3% of people surveyed saying it was the most important issue facing the country.
In 1988 a group supporting then-Vice President George H.W. Bush created the the so-called Willie Hoton ad to brand his Democratic opponent, then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, as soft on crime. That ad put the death penalty front and center.
We need only look back to the 2024 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump took every opportunity to stoke fears of crime. Yet only 1% of the electorate said crime was the most important issue in their decision about whom to vote for as president.
Also recall that in 2020, every candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination but one publicly opposed the death penalty, and with his election Joe Biden became the first president to advocate ending capital punishment.
That would have seemed unimaginable several decades ago. In 1988 a group supporting then-Vice President George H.W. Bush created the the so-called Willie Hoton ad to brand his Democratic opponent, then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, as soft on crime. That ad put the death penalty front and center. It started by stating that Bush supported the death penalty and Dukakis opposed it.
As a 2015 report on WNYC explained, “The Willie Horton ad had implications that stretched far beyond the 1988 campaign season — it ultimately pushed a button of fear that marked the beginning of a ‘tough on crime’ era.”
For example, during the 1992 campaign, then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was so determined to forestall a similar attack that he briefly left the campaign trail in New Hampshire to fly back to his home state to preside over an execution. As a 2015 article in The Atlantic observed, “State law did not require the governor’s presence, but politics did: Clinton wanted to raise his national profile and reverse the Democratic Party’s soft-on-crime image.”
That Newsom could afford to do what Dukakis and Clinton could not is of enormous significance for our politics.
As was the case eight years ago, he will not be alone in opposing the death penalty if he seeks the Democratic nomination for president. Among others rumored to run, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro called for the abolition of capital punishment in February 2023. Shapiro recounted his own evolution on that issue. “I ran for attorney general twice in support of the death penalty in the most heinous of cases,” he said. “And then when those cases would reach my desk, more and more, I found that I was unable to pursue capital punishment.”
Georgia Sen. Jon Osoff has long been vocal in calling for the death penalty’s end. He is a co-sponsor of a bill that would end the federal death penalty.
Another possible rival for the Democratic nomination, former Vice President Kamala Harris, said in 2019, “I’ve long been opposed to the death penalty. It is deeply immoral, irreversible, and ineffective … This failed system is immoral, and as President I would lead the fight to end it. It’s simply the right thing to do.”
In the end, Newsom did the right thing when he extended mercy to everyone with a death sentence in California. And he is unlikely to pay much of a political price for doing so.
The post What Gavin Newsom’s mass commutation says about death penalty politics appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply