In recent days, a wave of outrage has swept across social media, particularly among Black men discussing the execution of a Black man in Missouri.
Many have expressed their frustration, especially directed at Vice President Kamala Harris, who remained silent during this tragic event.
However, there seems to be a significant oversight in these discussions regarding the political landscape surrounding capital punishment.
It’s essential to remember that the push to execute this man didn’t come from Harris or the Democrats.
Instead, it was a Democratic District Attorney who sought to remove him from death row, only to be halted by a Republican attorney general.
This pattern continued with a Republican governor and a Republican state Supreme Court, all of whom unanimously supported moving forward with the execution.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by Republican justices, backed the decision.
So, where does the accountability lie?
Now, you might wonder why this conversation is intertwined with Donald Trump.
After all, the former president has a notorious history with capital punishment, especially highlighted by his past comments on the Central Park Five.
Trump infamously called for the death penalty for these wrongfully accused young men, showcasing a chilling attitude towards justice that still resonates today.
Fast forward to the aftermath of the 2020 elections.
Following his defeat, Trump reportedly urged then-Attorney General Bill Barr to expedite federal executions.
It’s a stark contrast to the current administration, which has not executed anyone federally since taking office.
In fact, both President Biden and Vice President Harris have maintained a clear stance against federal executions, a noteworthy point that deserves attention amidst the ongoing criticisms.
Let’s break it down further.
Under President Obama, there were also no federal executions.
Yet, during Trump’s final months in office, he oversaw a staggering 13 executions in just six months.
This raises an important question: how can we hold Biden and Harris accountable for actions they haven’t taken when their predecessor’s record is so starkly different?
A chilling example from Trump’s tenure illustrates this disparity.
In December 2020, as Brandon Bernard faced execution, Trump chose to take a call from a music producer who had publicly endorsed him instead of listening to pleas from Bernard’s family or legal representatives.
This moment underscores a troubling reality—politics often overshadowing humanity in matters of life and death.
For those quick to criticize Harris for her perceived inaction, it’s crucial to acknowledge the broader context.
There have been zero federal executions under the current administration.
In contrast, Trump’s administration saw a rush to execute individuals, marking a dark chapter in American justice.
Before 2020, there had only been three federal executions in six decades, highlighting just how unprecedented Trump’s actions were.
So, as discussions continue about the morality of capital punishment and the responsibilities of our leaders, let’s not forget the facts.
The narrative shouldn’t solely focus on Harris’s silence but should also address the alarming history of federal executions under Trump’s watch.
As we reflect on these issues, it becomes clear that the conversation around capital punishment is deeply complex, intertwined with political power plays and historical injustices.
It’s vital to engage in these discussions with a full understanding of the facts, rather than allowing emotions to cloud the bigger picture.
Ultimately, the question remains: who truly deserves our scrutiny in the realm of capital punishment?
Is it the current administration, which has refrained from executing anyone, or the previous one, which aggressively pursued a lethal agenda?
The answer might not be as straightforward as some would like to believe.
