Moderator Paula Zahn thanked the candidates. “Before we conclude tonight’s final debate, I’d just like to mention that you’ve both demonstrated what politics should be about. You have debated the issues forcefully, but with decorum and restraint. This has been the cleanest debate—maybe the cleanest presidential campaign—I can remember, and whichever of you prevails, you’ll both be remembered and admired for your poise throughout these contentious months.” Zahn was briefly interrupted by polite applause. “Now in accordance with the rules of this debate you each have five minutes to address the American electorate. Secretary Whitcomb, you’ll speak first.”
“Thank you, Paula.
“My fellow taxpayers . . .” The audience, or at least the Democrats in the room, rewarded her not-so-subtle reference to H.R. 1918 with laughter, cheers, and applause. Whitcomb smiled, now energized as she waited for the fanfare to die down.
“Violent crime is the scourge of our nation. But this scourge can be confronted in an enlightened, humanitarian way consistent with our national character. Please let us never forget who we are. We are the United States of America, the most powerful, the fairest, the most generous nation on earth. . . .
“A Whitcomb administration won’t use violence as a means to end violence. The death penalty is no deterrent; it is retribution that only legitimizes violence. Swift and Sure requires executing up to 40 persons in the United States every single day. That’s over 14,000 human beings each year, most of whom could be rehabilitated to become useful members of society—and many of whom will be innocent of the crimes of which they’re convicted.
“Even if we surrender and accept such injustice as a necessary evil—as a price we’re willing to pay to make our streets safer—still, Swift and Sure won’t work. Ultimately it will only make things worse. . . .”
(Note: The text of Secretary Whitcomb’s entire summation is reprinted in the Appendix. A summary of the key points of Swift and Sure appears in Chapter 12.—22g CP)
One of Harvard’s well-known characteristics has always been that eccentric and strange people do not feel out of place there; they have plenty of company. Pete had become more comfortable and had even acquired some social grace. He still rocked a little, but his tongue was completely inside his mouth most of the time, and he spoke to everyone, often calling them by name.
Acting as host, he said, “P-Please raise your hand if you’d vote for Whitcomb if the election were held now.” All 43 students’ names, hand dimensions, and social security numbers had already been recorded from their ID microchips as they entered the room. Pete scanned 27 hands, which were automatically verified and entered into his interactive remote unit.
About 45 seconds later, the screen registered the votes of every participating viewer nationwide. “Instant Poll Result: 3,824,752/8,956,781=42.7%.”
Diana lamented to Pete and David, “She’s running less than 43 percent right after her summation; not a good sign.” David and Diana were loyal Democrats who both backed Whitcomb.
Pete, who had supported Hall since the day he declared his candidacy in January 2003, added, “She’s, uh, got almost 63 percent of this room though. It’s like my dad once told me, ‘If you’re under 20 and you’re already a Republican, you have no heart. But if you’re over 30 and you’re still a Democrat, you have no brain.’” He thought to himself that perhaps his brother’s murder had given him a prematurely realistic slant on the human condition.
“Maybe they should change their mascots to the Tin Man and Scarecrow,” Diana shot back. At the time, the Republican party was symbolized by an elephant and the Democrats by a donkey.
David laughed. “That’d make it a lot easier to remember which mascot belongs to whom.”
(Note: In the 1939 film, The Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow and Tin Man journeyed to Oz to petition the Wizard for a brain and a heart, respectively.—22g CP)
Paula Zahn turned the podium over to Senator Travis Hall, who had compaigned more on the strength of his experience as a prosecutor than as a legislator. Before becoming Senator, Hall had proven a most effective Attorney General. During his two terms, violent crime in his state had increased at a rate less than one-third the national average, likely a result of policies that Hall had introduced.
More than any other State Attorney General of his era, Hall had emphasized victims’ rights in handling his cases and required his subordinates to do the same. Under Hall, every important decision had taken into account the point of view of victims or potential victims. He now used his solid anti-violent-crime track record to his advantage.
He spoke with less polish than Whitcomb, but with far more emotion.
“My friends, I wish I had Secretary Whitcomb’s patience. I admire her accomplishments. In a different time she could be a superb president. But not today.
“Today we need less patience and more resolve. I’d like to tell you one reason why I’m so impatient. Many of you know of my close friend Solomon Kurtz. . . . Two years ago, my dear friend was murdered, shot through the heart by a man trying to rob him. . . . The murderer, who had a long record of violent crime, was apprehended and convicted. . . . A great man was murdered and finally his killer was imprisoned for life. But think about this. . . .
“Secretary Whitcomb says the death penalty is not a deterrent—and she’s absolutely right! As a former Connecticut Attorney General, I admit the slow and unsure death penalty process of the past several decades has proven no deterrent at all. It’s barbaric torture to those waiting on death row and the legal cost of their appeals is absurd. It’s a travesty. Those funds should be available for education and enforcement, not legal expenses and imprisonment.
“Those contemplating violent crime must know they’ll be caught and that their lives will never be the same. A person found guilty of any violent crime should get no more than one chance at rehabilitation. Swift and Sure still gives the criminal more consideration than the victim. I believe the commission of a second violent crime requires execution, swiftly and surely. One fair trial and one quick appeal. No excuses. No delays. . . .”
(Note: The text of Travis Hall’s entire summation is also reprinted in the Appendix.—22g CP)
* * *
Again, Pete asked for a show of hands. “Uh, who’d vote for Hall now?” Eighteen hands went up, including Pete’s. Apparently Hall’s speech had persuaded two students in the room to change their votes. Pete punched in 18/43 and waited for the national results on the screen.
“Instant Poll Result: 5,601,112/8,898,765 = 62.9%”
From NBC’s studio in New York, newscaster Tom Brokaw looked into the camera. “Amazing! Hall gained over five points on his closing statement.”
Pete added, “Unless he m-makes some major blunder between now and election day, Travis Hall will be President and Swift and Sure will be law by early next year.”
CHAPTER 12
SWIFT AND SURE
Washington DC
February 28, 2006—Hon. Clifton Sheets becomes the fourth federal judge to be assassinated by protesters against the death penalty since Swift and Sure was enacted 14 months ago. In spite of higher-than-projected executions, the measure remains popular, with a 73-percent nationwide approval rating.—Fidel Castro dies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from complications of Alzheimer’s disease. Many Cubans mourn the death of the former dictator, who was overthrown in 1999, while others celebrate his passage. President Hall issues a statement of “sympathy to our friends and trading partners of the Cuban democracy over the loss of their former leader, a man who did what he thought was right for Cuba, a man still beloved by many of her citizens.”—United Airlines initiates supersonic passenger service between Los Angeles and New York City, scheduling service every three hours. Tickets on the 115-minute flights cost $2,150 each way. Within two weeks, American Airlines’ parent corporation, AMR, is expected to announce a schedule of six domestic supersonic flights, all originating from its Dallas/Fort Worth hub.
Swift and Sure, which inclu
ded the following eight changes in the law, did embody some liberal aspects, but not enough to mollify an angry, vocal minority:
1) First time violent offenders, including juveniles, were sentenced to privately run rehabilitation prisons or boot camps with rigorous education programs. Prisoners included anyone convicted of weapons possession crimes. A national standard was instituted for education and rehabilitation of such prisoners. All prisons were equipped with fitness facilities, libraries, and computers. Terms of incarceration were slightly shorter than before, but inmates had to pass literacy and mental competency tests to qualify for parole.
2) Registration of firearms and mandatory retinaprinting and DNA-recording of all firearm owners became national law. No convicted violent criminals could ever legally own or carry any firearm. After a 30-day grace period, possession of any unregistered firearm became a class-one felony, subject to severe penalties.
3) Free and instant treatment was offered on demand for drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling addiction, and any treatable form of mental illness. Concurrently the insanity defense for all violent crime was abolished. Defenses based on childhood abuse or any plea other than self-defense were virtually eliminated. This was known as the “No Excuses Provision.”
4) A federal mandate directed all states to increase health education budgets to a new national standard (an average increase of about 55 percent) and to introduce weekly anti-drug, anti-violence, and responsible parenting curricula in all public schools.
5) A series of Victims’ Rights Laws was enacted, allowing victims or their survivors to testify at sentencing hearings and to collect monetary damages through the Internal Revenue Service as a percentage surtax on criminals’ lifetime earnings, without the expense of attorneys or collection agencies. The surtax percentages were based on the severity of the crime, but were formulated to avoid causing such financial hardship as to force felons to commit further crimes impelled by desperation.
6) Within federal guidelines, all able inmates were required to perform suitable work as determined by prison operators. Inmates would, upon release, receive 10 percent of fair market earnings from their work, and 40 percent of earnings over and above the cost of their incarceration. Motivated inmates could earn substantial income and prison operators could profit and thereby lower bids for operating contracts. The goal was to minimize the cost to society of warehousing criminals while building prisoners’ work ethic.
7) Swift and Sure canceled privacy rights of inmates, implementing 24-hour audio-video monitoring of any areas accessible to prisoners, with data stored digitally off-site for 10 years. Any racketeering or serious crimes by inmates proven by video evidence became an automatic capital offense. Thus inmates would never again run the prisons.
8) Those convicted of violent crimes would be limited to one appeal, heard and ruled upon within 65 days of trial verdict. A mandatory death penalty was instituted for any second violent crime committed after Swift and Sure became law (January 15, 2005). Execution would take place immediately upon decision, with no exceptions granted under any circumstances.
Swift and Sure incorporated dozens of expensive programs. Nonetheless, the Congressional Budget Office predicted savings from decreased prison terms would exceed its cost. Congress authorized initial funding of $283 billion, advanced as loans to the states to fund federal mandates. The CBO projected full recapture through budget cuts within six years as prisons were turned over to private operators and the most unmanageable—and thus, expensive—prisoners were executed or rehabilitated.
(Note: It actually took six years and four months—quite close considering that this was more than 15 years before the CBO purchased its first Artificial Intelligence Statistical Processor [AISP] from Compaq. Eventually Swift and Sure would help create a budget surplus.—22g CP)
Pete and Tilly found themselves back in Washington DC, this time behind closed doors. They met with Senator Garrison Roswell (R.KY), chairman of the Senate Technology Committee. Tilly’s friends at the Bureau and most professors Pete had surveyed at Harvard Law School had suggested that if they wanted government support for any important project, Roswell was the man to see. “But if you’re looking for special favors,” one professor had warned Pete, “he’s definitely not your guy.”
First elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Roswell was one of many “minority conservatives” who converged on the capital in the late 1990s. It was considered almost certain that President Hall would choose Roswell as vice-presidential running mate for his reelection campaign in 2008. The 46-year-old former University of Virginia economics professor was black, smart, and very Republican.
(Note: Almost every former economics professor entering the political arena during that era ran as a member of the Republican party.—22g CP)
Roswell’s popularity transcended racial lines; well-liked among black constituents, his approval rating was even higher among whites. Few people thought of him in racial terms at all. To most of Kentucky, he was just “good ol’ Garry Roswell, the smartest damn Senator in Washington DC.” This attitude may not seem unusual now, but in 2006, humans weren’t as socially enlightened as you are today.
Garrison Roswell was one of President Hall’s closest political allies. Since those executed under Swift and Sure were disproportionately black, Roswell was indeed useful. That week on “Meet the Press” he had debated Swift and Sure with Senator Jesse Jackson (D.MD), defending his President’s program against the articulate liberal.
“My esteemed colleague attempts to paint Swift and Sure in racial terms,” Roswell concluded, “so I’ll respond in kind. Granted, we’re executing a lot of African Americans, maybe 14,000 or so last year. But our race has always been disproportionately victimized by violent crime, so I’d estimate that last year we also saved about 41,000 Black Americans, many of whom would have been murdered by the 14,000 we executed. The current system’s still pretty tough on us as a race, but it used to be much worse. Swift and Sure was the right program at the right time.”
Pete and Tilly had no trouble getting in to see Senator Roswell, whom they had never met, but who knew of them. Still shy, Pete didn’t wish to seem like he was self-promoting, so he remained silent while Tilly, who was anything but shy, began.
“Senator, with your support we think we can help you and President Hall mend this country. My friend might look like an average teenager, but he’s probably the most talented computer programmer in the world. We both believe he can build a machine that will tell us with absolute certainty whenever any person’s telling a lie. He expects it to require 10 to 20 years and at least $300 million to design and build. We hope he can do it before Swift and Sure tears America completely apart.”
Roswell asked Tilly and Pete questions, taking notes himself rather than leaving the task to a staff member. He made no comments or promises. He merely took down their e-mail addresses in case he had further questions and politely thanked them for their time and insight.
Once they had left Roswell’s office, Pete turned to Tilly and asked, “Is that it?”
“I don’t know,” she answered. “I guess we’ll have to wait and see.”
Swift and Sure was “demographically popular,” much as abortion rights were: Most people approved of it, but those who disagreed strongly were vehement and highly focused. It was a mess. Protests and candlelight vigils around courthouses and execution sites were unremitting. Four federal judges, three prosecutors, and nearly a dozen other court and penal workers had already been assassinated. Thousands of other officers of the court had been injured, attacked, or harassed.
The results of Swift and Sure conformed generally to expectations, particularly with respect to costs, but as with any complex government program, there were major surprises. For example, experts had predicted two to five million guns would be turned in pursuant to provision number two as listed at the beginning of this chapter. But an unexpected 26 million firearms were actually surrendered to police departments across the country duri
ng the first 30 days after enactment. Roswell had been involved in the debate over what to do with the weapons. The most liberal legislators argued for their destruction, an idea naturally favored by firearm manufacturers. Roswell disagreed.
“Let me get this straight,” he had said on the senate floor. “Are you fellows suggesting we melt down a billion dollars’ worth of weapons just so gun producers can make and sell new ones to the same people we could sell ours to? If we analyze the economic effects of that idea, it’s the exact same thing as giving those guys a billiondollar government subsidy. Couldn’t our police use that money?”
Roswell won enough votes to authorize police departments to auction the weapons to any qualified gun owner and to incorporate the proceeds into their budgets. Almost every law enforcement official in America now considered Garry Roswell a hero.
During the first three months after Swift and Sure’s enactment, the homicide rate actually rose, although total violent crime statistics plummeted. Evidently, as feared, some criminals murdered to eliminate witnesses. After the first three months, however, the murder rate fell sharply and was already less than half its peak level.
The most critical miscalculation had been the immediate number of capital convictions. It was now apparent that roughly 40,000 executions would take place in 2006, an average of about 765 per week, nearly triple the predicted rate. Executions were televised on a natural cellular system. Obviously there were logistical problems involved in humanely and painlessly putting so many people to death. But experts expected the number of executions to decrease rapidly as the most hard-core criminals were exterminated.
Roswell considered civil unrest the worst problem of all. In a new book, Inalienable Rights, former President Albert Gore built a catastrophically persuasive case against Swift and Sure. Particularly compelling was Gore’s contention that the number of innocent people executed under the Act was at least five times President Hall’s original projection. The book had whipped the anti-death penalty activists into a frenzy. Currently number four on the New York Times best-seller list, Inalienable Rights would have been number one if digital sales over the Internet and on-line networks had been included in the Times’s calculations. Protests were unceasing, aggressive, and often violent. “This circus is making Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life look like a friggin’ high school debate,” one of Roswell’s aides had declared.
The Truth Machine Page 10