Early in the week, an alarming disclosure was unveiled from the White House. President Joe Biden softened the penalty for 37 inmates on federal death row, all of who were responsible for truly heinous crimes. These were not ordinary criminals but individuals who had committed severe offenses, with some being multiple murderers. Shifting their sentences from death to life imprisonment without any chance of parole, President Biden made it abundantly clear where he stood on the issue of capital punishment.
Biden projected his decision as grounded in his principles and moral duty. Barefacedly he expressed his unremitting opposition for the federal government partaking in executions. So much so that, in his statement, he openly asserted his desire not to let the succeeding president carry forward any such gruesome task.
His assertion was, ‘I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.’ He further stated, ‘In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted.’ It is worth noting, however, that such an attitude was rather about serving his own principles than about serving the interests of the American people.
The announcement came just ahead of Biden’s final trip as president to Italy, where he has an arrangement to meet Pope Francis at the Vatican. The Pope, being consistent in his stands, has been fervent in his calls for the sentences of death row prisoners in the United States ‘be commuted or changed’. Thus, one might infer that Biden’s decision likely stemmed from Vatican influence rather than careful democratic consideration.
Interestingly, while the Pope endorses sparing all death penalty prisoners, Biden’s move only affected 37 out of 40. The exceptional cases kept their death sentences intact, raising questions about Biden’s selective judgment. Apparently, these exceptions were tailored depending on the nature and profile of their crimes.
In an official commentary, it was revealed that the President thinks the United States ought to abandon capital punishment, except in instances of terror and hate-driven mass murder. Which is why his recent intervention did not touch upon such cases. It seems like Biden is attempting to cherry-pick exceptions that sound plausible to his narrative.
Meanwhile, American sentiments concerning the death penalty are split. Although there was a period in the 1960s when capital punishment was the not preferred choice, nationally representative surveys reveal that majorities have consistently leaned towards supporting the death penalty. Gallup reports that currently, 53% of Americans are in favor, 43% oppose it.
Let’s not overlooked that those clemency beneficiaries are culprits of gruesome crimes. They were allotted their fair chance at justice and the judicial system does not falter in their cases. The punishment they received was according to the law and unanimously agreed upon as fitting for their felonies.
Biden’s discriminatory leniency between criminals comes stemmed from the seriousness and implications of their actions. Yet, is this what justice looks like in the Biden Administration? Selective application and bending the principles according to individual interpretations, rather than maintaining a consistent stance.
Biden’s actions were met with many reactions, one of which was Senator Tom Cotton’s critique. Cotton, representing Arkansas, voiced out what is likely to echo everywhere in the coming days – that Biden’s move reeks of politically convenient justice. An example of politically motivated decision-making, as opposed to a balanced, unbiased response.
President Biden’s decision raising questions whether the pretext of ‘principle and conscience’ conceals a broader agenda. Given the severity of the crimes these prisoners committed and the American public’s support for capital punishment, intervening clemency might be perceived as a disregard for victims’ justice.
Such a blanket decision exudes not a fair administration of justice; rather, it looks more like a political strategy tailored to please international interests and appease certain voter bases. The arbitrariness in selecting exceptions raises doubts about the underlying principles.
Biden’s administration seems to be pursuing a path that subverts the conventional norms of justice under the guise of progressive action. This warrants an interrogation into the meaning of justice and fairness in the face of heinous crimes, as it appears that the interests and safety of law-abiding citizens are not being prioritized.
While the administration flouts its power to alter sentences, the victims and their families face irreparable loss due to these commuted prisoners. Their pain is delegitimized by the administration’s advocacy for the criminals. This is a chilling image – an administration sympathizing more with the culprits than the victims.
The President’s continued manipulation of his executive clemency powers raises questions about his priorities. By extending leniency to convicted murderers, he deprioritizes the rights of victims and public safety, raising valid concerns questioning his commitment to upholding justice.
Ultimately, this move suggests that the Biden administration is more concerned about saving face on the global platform and aligning with the ideological sentiments of selected groups, rather than focusing on the real issue – ensuring actual public safety and justice.