Justin Green - DC

Political Theory and Punditry from a native of Flyover Country

The end of government, we’re told in Federalist #51, is justice. Justice is defined as the quality of being impartial and fair and bestowing equal treatment. But it also means caring for the defenseless, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed. This is a public as well as a private concern. A society ought to be judged on whether the weak and disadvantaged are cared for or exploited. And a just society is incompatible with one where government doesn’t care for people who can’t care for themselves.


Conservatives should be in the business of restoring confidence in the legitimacy of government by reminding people of its prescribed, limited and proper role in human society. And among those responsibilities is to care for those who can’t care for themselves. That understanding of the proper and humane use of the state has largely been lost; and it is the duty of responsible political leaders to reclaim it.

Amen, Peter Wehner.

More on this later. I have to eat, shower and go to work.

P.S. Here’s a link to Federalist 51

(Source: commentarymagazine.com)

What is Fair?

What right do we have to our stuff?

This question, albeit in far flowerier language, has been a dominant question of philosophy. Are people entitled to the fruits of their labor? How much of a person’s income does government have the right to seize via taxation and user fees? 

As a 22 year old college undergraduate, I will be the first to concede that my understanding of the philosophy surrounding an issue is extremely superficial. I have been exposed to thinkers such as John Locke, Karl Marx, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick, but my understanding on the range of thought in this subject is obviously limited. I readily accept that my arguments may stand on thin ice due to such a thin background, but I do believe that such reading has given me a start in seeking to answer the age old problem of taxation: “What is fair?”

I write this post for two reasons. First, I feel that my previous posts (here and here) criticizing ambiguity on the part of our President have themselves been guilty of ambiguity. I have presented strongly worded critiques of our President’s rhetoric yet failed to identify baselines of what I consider ambiguity versus appropriate specificity.

This post also arises from a question posed to me on Twitter:

Is it really the case that we don’t know what fairness means with regards to taxing millionaires?

Ari Kohen, via Twitter

I’d like to start with my critique of ambiguity. The specific phrase that made me so uncomfortable, as I wrote in a post entitled “Class Warfare” on December 6th, was this quote from an address President Obama delivered in Kansas:

“I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules”

As I mentioned in my post on the subject, this phrase is one of the most ambiguous statements I have seen in the Obama Presidency. To a Conservative, “fair share” could entail a flat tax. To a liberal, “fair share” could mean a 90% marginal rate on earnings over a million dollars a year. To a libertarian, a “fair share” could be represented as an end to the income tax. To some people, a “fair share” might even mean that everyone pays an equal amount in taxes each year, regardless of income. Now, I’m not advocating any of those things in particular. My point here is to suggest that the range of interpretations stemming from the idea of “fair share” is the natural result of Obama’s rhetoric.

If you use the word “fair” instead of a specific number or range of numbers, you aren’t really telling us anything about how you want to govern. You’re merely telling your supporters that you will deliver what they want. For example, President George W. Bush, in the landmark tax cut at the start of his Presidency, was undoubtedly working to ensure what his constituents found to be a more “fair” tax rate for wealthy Americans. Your opinion on the above statement will reflect your political ideology, which proves my point.

Having provided what I hope can be some useful clarity in my critique of our President’s ambiguous language, I’d like to pivot and discuss Dr. Kohen’s question.

Very simply, I do not believe that we know what “fairness” means with regards to taxing millionaires. Why? Since the New Deal, we have seen considerable fluctuation in top marginal rates and the level at which some marginal rates come into play.

Using numbers that account for inflation, consider the following that I will block quote for organizational purposes:

In 1932, the top marginal rate came into play at what today is a little over 16 million dollars. That rate was 63%. The rate for what adjusts as someone making just over million dollars was 37%.

By 1942, the top rate was triggered by an adjusted income of about 2.75 million dollars at a rate of 88%. Someone making a million dollars a year paid a 78% marginal rate.

Rates remained in relative stasis until the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, which dropped the rate for a millionaire to 68.5% and the top bracket to 77%, which dropped to 70% the following year.

What is key to note during the 1960s and 1970s is that the level of income to qualify for a top marginal rate steadily declined during these years. 

It was in the 1980s that serious changes again came into play, with rates for top earners settling at 39% by the mid 1990s.

The last major change for upper class earners were the Bush cuts in the early 2000s that pushed top rates to 35%.

All of this comes from The Tax Foundation

Now, what does this tell us about what is “fair” for taxing millionaires? Do we consider rates paid during the Great Depression fair? How about rates during the Second World War? How about the Kennedy tax cuts? How about the Clinton or Bush rates? 

At bottom, our society appears to be in an odd middle ground between the “taxation is forced labor” of Nozick and Rawl’s argument grounded in contingency and chance. 

To me, it appears that the arguments for determining tax rates for millionaires during past decades seems to have been grounded less in what was “fair” than what level of receipts were needed to run our country’s government and how best to obtain that income.

In 2016, as I wrote in my previous post, we are projected to collect over 19% of GDP in taxes for our federal government, which is a number corresponding to top intakes over the past 70 years. That number assumes top tax rates as returned to the Clinton era level of 39.1%.

So, I would ask, what does “fair” have to do with determining policy? Does it mean that Buffett should pay a higher rate than his secretary? Does it mean we need to return to top marginal rates of 91%? Does being “fair” require a flat tax?

I would answer that “fairness” has much less to tell us about setting tax policy than a desire to meet our obligations. Taxation should be a means of obtaining the funds to pay for such obligations instead of being viewed as a means to level out natural stratification in society. 

So, if we need to return to tax rates from the 1990s, 1960s, or even the 1930s in order to pay for programs and services the American people want and need, then let’s have a conversation about attaining such income. Let’s not pretend, however, that this is a conversation about fairness, because fairness doesn’t really tell us anything about governing other than preaching to the choir.

Again, I challenge our President to name a number for the rate a millionaire should pay.

I as well am in favor of much needed tax simplication, closing of loopholes, and working to limit deficits and long term debt.

Let’s have this discussion like good democratic citizens instead of class warriors.

H/T Emily Schlichting, H/T Ari Kohen

How Should I Feel About Justice?

Consider this a thought experiment via blog. As an undergraduate, my understanding of the complex philosophy behind justice, vengeance, and related subjects is still developing. My opinions on these subjects has changed considerably in recent months, so please accept this disclaimer that I am trying to expand a debate, not lay out an argument I can 100% agree with.

How should we feel when brutal tyrants and terrorists meet gruesome ends? I have yet to see posts titled “In Defense of Gadhafi” or “Osama Was a Good Dude.” Undeniably, these were men who behaved terribly, who directly and indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of innocents. As many bloggers have stated, I feel little pity for these men. They brutalized innocent people and lived terrible lives.

With that said, I also stand with Allan Bloom and other cultural universalists. I believe we can ascertain fundamental truths about human nature, be the source a deity, immutable scientific discoveries, man made philosophy, or even human consensus formed over the long term.  If we accept Bloom’s premise, the question becomes how we should define justice, and to dig a bit deeper, how we should feel when justice is said to have occurred. One perspective argues that no death should be celebrated. Here is the closing paragraph from University of Nebraska Professor Ari Kohen’s piece discussing the celebration after the death of Libyan Dicator Moammar Gadhafi:

Personally, I’d like to see Americans reflecting on the idea of justice and the proper role of compassion, on why corpses are the only possible validation for so many of us, on what a society that applauds a body count is ultimately missing, on the prejudices and privilege that allow us to cheer and sing when others die … but we’re so very far away from doing any of those things right now that all of our major newspapers ran full-color, close-up photographs of a dead or dying man on their front pages this week. They know what we want.

Ari Kohen, 10/26/2011

Kohen is clearly speaking to his fellow Americans in this piece. We are the people who so excitedly partied outside the White House after the death of Bin Laden. To a smaller extent, we also glowed over our role in assisting the successful yet bloody revolution in Libya to dispatch Gadhafi. Americans may not have killed Gadhafi, but our bombs and missiles enabled the revolution to succeed.

What were we celebrating?


This picture is undeniably gruesome. If one were to not know the identity of the dead man, instant remorse and pity would be the result for even the iciest hearted soul. Kohen argues, and I concur, that we should feel this way about every person that dies, even the most monstrous among us. It is our own humanity that suffers when we degrade the humanity of others. To quote Kohen:

And now, when so many people positively raced to Facebook, Twitter, email, and blogs to share pictures and video of Gaddafi’s bloody visage –- either dead or dying -– I was reminded once again how far removed we are from a time when we might conceive of justice as more than simply the paying back of violence with violence. When we gloat over the dead bodies we’ve managed to pile up — regardless of the reason that led to those deaths —  we’re really celebrating the basest part of our nature.

The introduction of the photograph is cited as one of the principle reasons for the high levels of internal opposition to the Civil War. People could not look at pictures of rotting corpses strewn across expansive battlegrounds and be repulsed by what they saw. I believe humans possess the capacity to feel for and care about all others. These feelings were evoked a century ago as a means to help people understand the horror of warfare and violence. Somewhere along the way, this tactic has been tragically reversed so that people revel in gruesome imagery and action. The town square of medieval times has returned courtesy of the internet and television, yet it is not to deter violence, but rather celebrate its application, that we disseminate these images in modern times. 

In his final paragraph, Kohen mentions that we should be discussing justice when held up to the illuminating light of compassion. I am hesitant to walk this path. For most of history, those who gave compassion to their enemies have been celebrated for acting in an extrajudicial manner. It is the historical norm to practice vengeance, and the idea of justice and compassion being interlocked has been the exception to this brutal rule.  We revel in this exception because it suggests the ability of humans to rise above base instincts and prove wrong the notion that at heart, humans are mere animals.

My reaction to Gadhafi’s death was far more visceral than Kohen’s:

I am less amused than intrigued by the reaction of Westerners to the way Gadhafi was removed. Expect to see considerable hand wringing over the publishing of gruesome photos. Expect to hear debates over the legality or the correctness of the circumstances of the end of his reign. You won’t hear them from me. Americans and their related brethren know nothing of tyrants. 

Sic Semper Tyrannis

I stand by a definition of justice that leaves room for mercy and compassion. Unfortunately, we live in a world numbed by brutality and bloodshed. If push comes to shove, I’d rather see Tyrants executed in truck beds than innocent citizens massacred in Benghazi or Homs. To me, every human life is precious, but I don’t pull nearly enough strings to protect these lives.

I cheer at the death of tyrants because it means the possibility of life for so many more and it reminds tyrants of the fate they all eventually face. Will it deter them? Probably not. Will it provide comfort for the victims? I cannot say. What I do know is that it puts an end to their actions. 

So again, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

H/T Ari Kohen

The struggle for justice doesn’t end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me and all the ones who will come after me. I’m in good spirits and I’m prayerful and at peace. But I will not stop fighting until I’ve taken my last breath.

—Troy Davis (via Amnesty International USA).

With tomorrow’s execution looming, you can still take action in this case here.

For more information on the case, click here or here.

(via kohenari)

kohenari:

The powers that be in Georgia seem hell-bent on executing Troy Davis, even though his guilt remains very much in doubt:

Two defense lawyers say Georgia’s pardons board has rejected clemency for Troy Davis, who has attracted high-profile support for his claim that he was wrongly convicted of killing a police officer in 1989.
The Board of Pardons and Paroles on Tuesday rejected Davis’ request for clemency after hearing hours of testimony from his supporters and prosecutors. That’s according to two of Davis’ lawyers, Stephen Marsh and Brian Kammer. There was no immediate word from the board.

More information on Davis’ case, as well as action you can take today, can be found here and here.

kohenari:

The powers that be in Georgia seem hell-bent on executing Troy Davis, even though his guilt remains very much in doubt:

Two defense lawyers say Georgia’s pardons board has rejected clemency for Troy Davis, who has attracted high-profile support for his claim that he was wrongly convicted of killing a police officer in 1989.

The Board of Pardons and Paroles on Tuesday rejected Davis’ request for clemency after hearing hours of testimony from his supporters and prosecutors. That’s according to two of Davis’ lawyers, Stephen Marsh and Brian Kammer. There was no immediate word from the board.

More information on Davis’ case, as well as action you can take today, can be found here and here.

kohenari:

Today is the tenth anniversary of the death of my friend Ronnie Frye. He was poisoned to death in the middle of the night by the government of the State of North Carolina, on behalf of its citizens, in revenge for the 1993 murder of Ralph Childress.
I met Ronnie in the last year of his life; he was in his eighth year on death row when the lawyers who were handling his appeals asked me to meet with him and maybe, depending on how things went, to help them with a campaign to influence the governor’s decision about whether or not to commute his sentence to life imprisonment.
I’d never done anything like this before.
I was in my second year of graduate school and had just begun work as a teaching assistant for a class on human rights that had a service learning component; one of my tasks was to accompany a few students who’d signed up to meet with local death penalty attorneys. Before the end of that first meeting, I found myself agreeing to go along with everyone to the prison in Raleigh and to meet one-on-one with Frye … just to get to know him.
I knew that I was opposed to the death penalty, but only in an academic sort of way. I’d grown up in Michigan, which abolished the death penalty in 1846, and in Canada, which abolished it in 1977. Although I had done a lot of work with Amnesty International by this point in my life, I didn’t really have any first-hand experience with human rights issues. I was just a letter-writer and the organizer of an occasional rally. When I moved to Durham, North Carolina in 1999, I learned that executions took place at a prison in nearby Raleigh and I went to my first late-night protest vigil that Fall where I met a group of amazing people who plugged me into a state- and nation-wide network of human rights activists.
That said, I’d never been inside a prison and I’d never spoken to a prisoner. I had no idea what to expect when I walked into the visitation area and sat down across from a death row inmate. The whole thing couldn’t have seemed more surreal. I’d attended private schools until I was seventeen years old, graduated from college with two bachelor’s degrees, and was actually being paid to work on a PhD in political philosophy at Duke University. And Ronnie was a recovering crack addict from the mountains of North Carolina who admitted to murdering his landlord with a pair of scissors.
I was scared of him before they brought him down to meet me that first time. I’d looked up Frye online and found a picture of him; it must have been his intake picture from back in 1993: he had long, dirty hair and a beard; I told everyone who asked me about my impending prison visit that his eyes looked angry. The guy who sat across from me on that first day in the prison visitation area, though, didn’t look that way at all. He looked the guy in the picture that accompanies this post.
After my first meeting with Ronnie, speaking through a little grate and looking through bars and thick glass, we seemed to have enough interest in one another to agree to meet again the following week. Thereafter, I met with him every week for eight months, sometimes for more than two hours at a time. Before I left, every time, he’d put his hand against the glass and I’d do the same; it was the only way to shake hands. My first act of activism on Ronnie’s behalf was to ask prison officials to take a new picture of him for the Department of Corrections website; without too much prodding, they agreed. I knew that if Ronnie did get an execution date, reporters would go there for his picture and the old one would make people feel about him the way that I had; he’d seem like the monster that people want convicted murderers to be, when in fact he seemed to be a decent man who made a series of terrible choices.
Over the months that we met, we talked about sports, food, movies, music, politics, and religion. He loved auto racing, about which I knew nothing; he spent month trying to convince me that driving around in a circle is a legitimate sport. He loved the food in the prison cafeteria, but he said it had made him fat. Still he always tried to find ways to get seconds, occasionally getting into trouble for sneaking an extra little carton of milk because the one he got was barely enough milk for an elementary school kid’s lunch. He used to ask me read passages from the Bible and then, the following week, we’d discuss them. I didn’t begrudge him these discussions. His faith was hard-earned and I respected him for it. Though I wasn’t particularly religious myself, I knew a lot about the Bible and enjoyed talking with him about questions and problems that we found. He was open-minded and interested in learning about Judaism and thinking through my lack of interest in organized religion. He wanted very much for me to believe as he did because he’d found a great deal of assistance and comfort in his faith; he thought that I would have a difficult time dealing with his death and he didn’t want me to have to deal with it alone.
In this, he treated me the same way that he treated his family members and the lawyers handling his appeals; he sought to protect us and to look after us as much as he possibly could. He’d had only sporadic contact with his family while he was on death row because he knew it was difficult for them to come to Raleigh and difficult for them to visit with him in this situation. But I asked about them (he had a brother, a half-brother, a half-sister, and an aunt), and he eventually told me that his aunt used email. Beyond wanting to get them all back in touch — none of them were letter-writers; I didn’t get a single letter from Ronnie in the eight months of our friendship — his appelate attorneys needed them to explain, likely to the governor, why Ronnie ended up on death row and why his life ought to be spared.
His family hadn’t testified on his behalf at trial — Ronnie said, ”I didn’t want my family involved. I felt like I had shamed them enough already” — and his court-appointed trial attorneys failed to present the mitigating evidence that might have swayed a jury to put him in jail for life rather than sentence him to death. In particular, his attorneys failed to find and present this picture:

This is a eight-year-old Ronnie in a photo taken by police and later used to train officers about spotting child abuse. The accompanying photo, of his back, has been lost. All you can see are the marks on his torso where the bullwhip with which his foster father routinely beat him came around and stung him in front.[1] Ronnie’s jury never saw the photo because his trial lawyers never found it; they never found it because they never asked about it, even though Ronnie’s foster father went to jail when the abuse was discovered; and they never asked about it because the lawyer responsible for digging into Ronnie’s past was an alcoholic who later admitted to “drinking as many as 12 shots daily before and during Frye’s trial.” At each appeal, judges found that Ronnie’s decision to keep his family out of things — and not his attorney’s drinking — hampered his defense or that the outcome likely would have been the same if both of his court-appointed lawyers had been sober.
Of course, jurors disagreed. If they’d known more, two of Ronnie’s jurors said, they’d have voted differently in the penalty phase of the trial.
As it became more and more apparent that Ronnie’s execution date of August 31 likely would not be changed by any court, the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, Amnesty International, the Dean of UNC’s Law School, the President of the North Carolina Bar Association, a former Chief Justice of North Carolina’s Supreme Court, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, People of Faith Against the Death Penalty, and the ACLU all petitioned Governor Mike Easley to commute the death sentence.
I did too. Ronnie’s family asked me to go along with them to meet with Easley. This was all part of a last-ditch effort when the courts had turned down Ronnie’s appeals. There was a massive media campaign — you can still find a lot of it online if you search — and there were rallies in Hickory and in Raleigh. The last two weeks of it is something of a blur for me as I reflect on it now. I have a vague memory of driving out to Hickory, of talking to a handful of reporters, and of trying to explain to the governor that putting Ronnie to death would be the last in a series of instances where the State of North Carolina had failed him.
But my clearest memories are of my one contact visit with Ronnie and of my phone call with him on the night of his execution.
One of his lawyers called me, in early August, to tell me that we’d need to make a clemency video. He wondered if I knew anyone with a camera or editing equipment. I didn’t, but I managed to enlist a helpful Duke undergrad who had access to these things. Together, we drove out to the prison where the elevator took us to a different floor from the one to which it always automatically took visitors. In a bare room with a few chairs and a folding table, I got to shake hands with Ronnie Frye for the first and only time. We sat in that room for a couple of hours and shot something like thirty minutes of tape, after deciding that it would be better for Ronnie to speak about what he felt rather than to read some prepared speech. What we had, by the end, was an interview: I asked questions and Ronnie answered. Then this undergrad and I went back to his dorm and edited it down to a few minutes of just Ronnie’s answers to send to Governor Easley. I have the cassette tape with both the three minute and the full thirty minute versions; it’s amazing and heart-breaking. Every time I watch it, I can’t believe I’m the kid in the video. Before we shut off the camera and left the prison, Ronnie caught me up in a bear hug, nearly lifting me completely off the ground.
On the day of his death, I was expected to join his family for another contact visit. They would be there much of the day, leave for dinner when Ronnie got his last meal (he’d asked me to find a good place for a cheeseburger; as a vegetarian at the time, I’d asked around for a long time), and then return to spend some time with him in the evening. But when I arrived, early in the afternoon, prison officials told me that the visit was for family members and lawyers only; I might have been part of his legal team, but I would have to wait outside. I was stunned, but Ronnie was quick to adapt; he spent some of his precious time sending messages back and forth with me through his lawyers. I waited outside the prison for hours that day and, after dinner, I waited in a room near the parking lot that was slowly filling up with members of the media who were there to report on the execution. There had been some last-minute wrangling with prison officials and it seemed that I would be allowed to speak to Ronnie on the phone at some point that evening. The call came through late, after 11pm, when Ronnie’s family and attorneys had been escorted into a separate waiting room until it was time for the execution to proceed. He asked if I was alright; he said he was doing ok; he told me that his cheeseburger had been great; he said he hoped I could keep in touch with his family; he asked me to thank the people who were outside the prison gates holding a candlelight vigil; and he told me to keep working to change people’s minds about the death penalty. He said, “I love you, brother.” And then our time was up.
Ronnie Frye’s death was meant to bring some measure of comfort to the victims of his crime, the family of Ralph Childress. Perhaps it did; I know Ronnie sincerely hoped that it would. But it also created another innocent, grieving family: Ronnie’s. As I have written a great many times on this blog over the past couple of years in one way or another, the death penalty is not a solution to the problem violence; it is violence. I know this from first-hand experience; it is not theoretical or abstract to me.[2]
One final note: Amazingly, and totally unbeknownst to me until I started writing this reflection, there’s an interview with Ronnie posted online as a resource for criminal justice students; it was recorded a little over a week before his execution. You can listen to it here.
[1] The term “foster father” is not at all the proper word to use in this situation and I use it only because there isn’t a term in existence to describe Ronnie’s relationship to Steve Ford. What happened is this: “While filling their car at a gas station, Steve and Cleo Ford heard that a Hickory woman was giving her children away. They met Carolyn Frye at a restaurant. She introduced 4-year-old Ronnie and his 5-year-old brother David. Then she handed her boys a bag of candy and announced that the Fords were their new mama and daddy. No papers were signed, no authorities involved. Ronnie Frye became Ronnie Ford.” There is a good deal more about Ronnie’s background here.
[2] An edited version of this blog post appears as the first in a monthly series of columns on the problem of justice in contemporary politics and pop culture that I will be writing for the Daily Nebraskan this semester.

kohenari:

Today is the tenth anniversary of the death of my friend Ronnie Frye. He was poisoned to death in the middle of the night by the government of the State of North Carolina, on behalf of its citizens, in revenge for the 1993 murder of Ralph Childress.

I met Ronnie in the last year of his life; he was in his eighth year on death row when the lawyers who were handling his appeals asked me to meet with him and maybe, depending on how things went, to help them with a campaign to influence the governor’s decision about whether or not to commute his sentence to life imprisonment.

I’d never done anything like this before.

I was in my second year of graduate school and had just begun work as a teaching assistant for a class on human rights that had a service learning component; one of my tasks was to accompany a few students who’d signed up to meet with local death penalty attorneys. Before the end of that first meeting, I found myself agreeing to go along with everyone to the prison in Raleigh and to meet one-on-one with Frye … just to get to know him.

I knew that I was opposed to the death penalty, but only in an academic sort of way. I’d grown up in Michigan, which abolished the death penalty in 1846, and in Canada, which abolished it in 1977. Although I had done a lot of work with Amnesty International by this point in my life, I didn’t really have any first-hand experience with human rights issues. I was just a letter-writer and the organizer of an occasional rally. When I moved to Durham, North Carolina in 1999, I learned that executions took place at a prison in nearby Raleigh and I went to my first late-night protest vigil that Fall where I met a group of amazing people who plugged me into a state- and nation-wide network of human rights activists.

That said, I’d never been inside a prison and I’d never spoken to a prisoner. I had no idea what to expect when I walked into the visitation area and sat down across from a death row inmate. The whole thing couldn’t have seemed more surreal. I’d attended private schools until I was seventeen years old, graduated from college with two bachelor’s degrees, and was actually being paid to work on a PhD in political philosophy at Duke University. And Ronnie was a recovering crack addict from the mountains of North Carolina who admitted to murdering his landlord with a pair of scissors.

I was scared of him before they brought him down to meet me that first time. I’d looked up Frye online and found a picture of him; it must have been his intake picture from back in 1993: he had long, dirty hair and a beard; I told everyone who asked me about my impending prison visit that his eyes looked angry. The guy who sat across from me on that first day in the prison visitation area, though, didn’t look that way at all. He looked the guy in the picture that accompanies this post.

After my first meeting with Ronnie, speaking through a little grate and looking through bars and thick glass, we seemed to have enough interest in one another to agree to meet again the following week. Thereafter, I met with him every week for eight months, sometimes for more than two hours at a time. Before I left, every time, he’d put his hand against the glass and I’d do the same; it was the only way to shake hands. My first act of activism on Ronnie’s behalf was to ask prison officials to take a new picture of him for the Department of Corrections website; without too much prodding, they agreed. I knew that if Ronnie did get an execution date, reporters would go there for his picture and the old one would make people feel about him the way that I had; he’d seem like the monster that people want convicted murderers to be, when in fact he seemed to be a decent man who made a series of terrible choices.

Over the months that we met, we talked about sports, food, movies, music, politics, and religion. He loved auto racing, about which I knew nothing; he spent month trying to convince me that driving around in a circle is a legitimate sport. He loved the food in the prison cafeteria, but he said it had made him fat. Still he always tried to find ways to get seconds, occasionally getting into trouble for sneaking an extra little carton of milk because the one he got was barely enough milk for an elementary school kid’s lunch. He used to ask me read passages from the Bible and then, the following week, we’d discuss them. I didn’t begrudge him these discussions. His faith was hard-earned and I respected him for it. Though I wasn’t particularly religious myself, I knew a lot about the Bible and enjoyed talking with him about questions and problems that we found. He was open-minded and interested in learning about Judaism and thinking through my lack of interest in organized religion. He wanted very much for me to believe as he did because he’d found a great deal of assistance and comfort in his faith; he thought that I would have a difficult time dealing with his death and he didn’t want me to have to deal with it alone.

In this, he treated me the same way that he treated his family members and the lawyers handling his appeals; he sought to protect us and to look after us as much as he possibly could. He’d had only sporadic contact with his family while he was on death row because he knew it was difficult for them to come to Raleigh and difficult for them to visit with him in this situation. But I asked about them (he had a brother, a half-brother, a half-sister, and an aunt), and he eventually told me that his aunt used email. Beyond wanting to get them all back in touch — none of them were letter-writers; I didn’t get a single letter from Ronnie in the eight months of our friendship — his appelate attorneys needed them to explain, likely to the governor, why Ronnie ended up on death row and why his life ought to be spared.

His family hadn’t testified on his behalf at trial — Ronnie said, ”I didn’t want my family involved. I felt like I had shamed them enough already” — and his court-appointed trial attorneys failed to present the mitigating evidence that might have swayed a jury to put him in jail for life rather than sentence him to death. In particular, his attorneys failed to find and present this picture:

This is a eight-year-old Ronnie in a photo taken by police and later used to train officers about spotting child abuse. The accompanying photo, of his back, has been lost. All you can see are the marks on his torso where the bullwhip with which his foster father routinely beat him came around and stung him in front.[1] Ronnie’s jury never saw the photo because his trial lawyers never found it; they never found it because they never asked about it, even though Ronnie’s foster father went to jail when the abuse was discovered; and they never asked about it because the lawyer responsible for digging into Ronnie’s past was an alcoholic who later admitted to “drinking as many as 12 shots daily before and during Frye’s trial.” At each appeal, judges found that Ronnie’s decision to keep his family out of things — and not his attorney’s drinking — hampered his defense or that the outcome likely would have been the same if both of his court-appointed lawyers had been sober.

Of course, jurors disagreed. If they’d known more, two of Ronnie’s jurors said, they’d have voted differently in the penalty phase of the trial.

As it became more and more apparent that Ronnie’s execution date of August 31 likely would not be changed by any court, the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, Amnesty International, the Dean of UNC’s Law School, the President of the North Carolina Bar Association, a former Chief Justice of North Carolina’s Supreme Court, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, People of Faith Against the Death Penalty, and the ACLU all petitioned Governor Mike Easley to commute the death sentence.

I did too. Ronnie’s family asked me to go along with them to meet with Easley. This was all part of a last-ditch effort when the courts had turned down Ronnie’s appeals. There was a massive media campaign — you can still find a lot of it online if you search — and there were rallies in Hickory and in Raleigh. The last two weeks of it is something of a blur for me as I reflect on it now. I have a vague memory of driving out to Hickory, of talking to a handful of reporters, and of trying to explain to the governor that putting Ronnie to death would be the last in a series of instances where the State of North Carolina had failed him.

But my clearest memories are of my one contact visit with Ronnie and of my phone call with him on the night of his execution.

One of his lawyers called me, in early August, to tell me that we’d need to make a clemency video. He wondered if I knew anyone with a camera or editing equipment. I didn’t, but I managed to enlist a helpful Duke undergrad who had access to these things. Together, we drove out to the prison where the elevator took us to a different floor from the one to which it always automatically took visitors. In a bare room with a few chairs and a folding table, I got to shake hands with Ronnie Frye for the first and only time. We sat in that room for a couple of hours and shot something like thirty minutes of tape, after deciding that it would be better for Ronnie to speak about what he felt rather than to read some prepared speech. What we had, by the end, was an interview: I asked questions and Ronnie answered. Then this undergrad and I went back to his dorm and edited it down to a few minutes of just Ronnie’s answers to send to Governor Easley. I have the cassette tape with both the three minute and the full thirty minute versions; it’s amazing and heart-breaking. Every time I watch it, I can’t believe I’m the kid in the video. Before we shut off the camera and left the prison, Ronnie caught me up in a bear hug, nearly lifting me completely off the ground.

On the day of his death, I was expected to join his family for another contact visit. They would be there much of the day, leave for dinner when Ronnie got his last meal (he’d asked me to find a good place for a cheeseburger; as a vegetarian at the time, I’d asked around for a long time), and then return to spend some time with him in the evening. But when I arrived, early in the afternoon, prison officials told me that the visit was for family members and lawyers only; I might have been part of his legal team, but I would have to wait outside. I was stunned, but Ronnie was quick to adapt; he spent some of his precious time sending messages back and forth with me through his lawyers. I waited outside the prison for hours that day and, after dinner, I waited in a room near the parking lot that was slowly filling up with members of the media who were there to report on the execution. There had been some last-minute wrangling with prison officials and it seemed that I would be allowed to speak to Ronnie on the phone at some point that evening. The call came through late, after 11pm, when Ronnie’s family and attorneys had been escorted into a separate waiting room until it was time for the execution to proceed. He asked if I was alright; he said he was doing ok; he told me that his cheeseburger had been great; he said he hoped I could keep in touch with his family; he asked me to thank the people who were outside the prison gates holding a candlelight vigil; and he told me to keep working to change people’s minds about the death penalty. He said, “I love you, brother.” And then our time was up.

Ronnie Frye’s death was meant to bring some measure of comfort to the victims of his crime, the family of Ralph Childress. Perhaps it did; I know Ronnie sincerely hoped that it would. But it also created another innocent, grieving family: Ronnie’s. As I have written a great many times on this blog over the past couple of years in one way or another, the death penalty is not a solution to the problem violence; it is violence. I know this from first-hand experience; it is not theoretical or abstract to me.[2]

One final note: Amazingly, and totally unbeknownst to me until I started writing this reflection, there’s an interview with Ronnie posted online as a resource for criminal justice students; it was recorded a little over a week before his execution. You can listen to it here.


[1] The term “foster father” is not at all the proper word to use in this situation and I use it only because there isn’t a term in existence to describe Ronnie’s relationship to Steve Ford. What happened is this: “While filling their car at a gas station, Steve and Cleo Ford heard that a Hickory woman was giving her children away. They met Carolyn Frye at a restaurant. She introduced 4-year-old Ronnie and his 5-year-old brother David. Then she handed her boys a bag of candy and announced that the Fords were their new mama and daddy. No papers were signed, no authorities involved. Ronnie Frye became Ronnie Ford.” There is a good deal more about Ronnie’s background here.

[2] An edited version of this blog post appears as the first in a monthly series of columns on the problem of justice in contemporary politics and pop culture that I will be writing for the Daily Nebraskan this semester.