Due Process: Rahmanullah Lakanwal and the Eternal Unfairness of the Death Penalty
The Immediate Shock, Public Reaction & Due Process
When a crime shocks the public, the first casualty is often patience. The second is principle (…due process). In the aftermath of the shooting that left two National Guard members mortally wounded in Washington, D.C., the nation entered a period of deep grief. Officials confirmed that U.S. Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom has died, and leaders across the country urged Americans to pray for U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, who was critically injured. In this climate of sorrow and fear, United States Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on national television (Fox News) and declared, “If something happens… we will do everything in our power to seek the death penalty against that monster who should not have been in our country.”
Her words were meant to signal strength in a moment of instability. Yet statements like these reveal something deeper and far more troubling…the ease with which political actors are willing to abandon constitutional commitments when public emotion surges. They demonstrate precisely why Rahmanullah Lakanwal…and every accused person…must receive full due process…and why a system that allows state officials to prejudge defendants can never fairly administer the death penalty.
The Foundation of Due Process
Due process is not a luxury reserved for the innocent or the sympathetic. It is the foundation of our criminal justice system. The guarantee that the state may not take a person’s liberty without meeting the highest standards of proof in a neutral forum is the undergirding of everything we claim to believe about government. The Constitution makes no exceptions for immigration status, nationality or moments of collective anger. It insists that every defendant is presumed innocent, entitled to counsel, entitled to a fair and impartial jury and protected from governmental actions that could taint the trial process. These protections stand precisely so that in moments of intense public grief…when the desire for immediate resolution is overwhelming…the law does not bend to passion.
How Political Statements Undermine Due Process
Attorney General Bondi’s televised comments undermine nearly every one of these protections. By labeling Lakanwal a “monster”…she erased the presumption of innocence and transmitted a message to potential jurors…this case is already settled. When an official with a national platform declares guilt before evidence is presented, the integrity of the trial process becomes compromised before it begins. A jury pool exposed to this rhetoric cannot easily be asked to approach the case without prejudice. And because her statement was made in the language of public protection…urging prayer and promising swift retribution…it becomes more than commentary…it becomes a directive about what the public should expect and demand.
Even more troubling is her statement that Lakanwal “should not have been in our country.” This is not an argument about evidence or culpability. It is an invocation of outsider status as an aggravating factor. It subtly suggests that his alleged actions are uniquely heinous not because of what occurred…but because of who he is and where he is from. Equal protection guarantees that foreign nationals and citizens should stand on the same legal ground in a criminal proceeding such as this. Anything that compromises such footing perverts due process.
The Inherent Problems with the Death Penalty
This is where the problem with the death penalty becomes undeniable. The death penalty is not simply another punishment. It demands a fairness standard beyond anything else in the criminal system, because it is irreversible. Yet the political environment surrounding capital cases actively undermines such fairness. Prosecutors and elected officials often use capital cases as opportunities to display toughness…to respond to public fear…or to demonstrate loyalty to particular constituencies. Media pressure compounds these incentives. The result is a climate where objectivity is nearly impossible…and where political advantage can drive decisions about who lives and who dies.
Attorney General Bondi’s remarks illustrate how easily this happens. Before any trial, before any cross-examination or before evidence is fully known, a political figure just stood on national television and promised the harshest possible punishment. This transforms capital punishment into a spectacle rather than a sober legal process. It makes death an expectation before guilt is established. In such an environment, can we honestly claim that the ultimate punishment can ever be imposed fairly?
Due Process is in Greater Danger in High-Profile Cases
For Lakanwal specifically, due process is especially essential. Initial facts in high profile cases are often incomplete or incorrect. Individuals accused of violence against law enforcement or military personnel face heightened public scrutiny and pressure long before trial. Foreign nationals face additional barriers…lack of familiarity with the legal system, language obstacles and public suspicion fueled by stereotypes. The legal system’s rigor exists precisely because these vulnerabilities are real. When officials make statements like Attorney General Bondi’s, they exploit these vulnerabilities rather than guard against them…thereby poisoning the entire process.
The Stakes for Victims’ Families
The moral stakes are not limited to defendants. The families of Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe…and the communities surrounding them…deserve a process that is unimpeachably fair. When prosecutors or officials prejudge a case, they endanger the entire prosecution. Convictions won through tainted proceedings are vulnerable to appeal, reversal or decades long delays. Families who are told that death will bring closure may instead endure decades upon decades of uncertainty because the state rushed to promise a result it could not constitutionally secure. True justice for victims is grounded in legitimacy, not spectacle.
Why the Death Penalty Cannot Be Fair
Ultimately, the core argument is simple…if a state official can publicly pronounce someone a monster and promise their execution before trial…the system administering that execution is not neutral. It is political. It is emotional. It is vulnerable to prejudice, xenophobia and impulse. And a system shaped by those forces cannot justly determine who should die.
Rahmanullah Lakanwal deserves due process not because he is innocent…and not because the allegations are trivial…but because due process is the only thing that stands between justice and vengeance. When public officials abandon those principles, they reveal that the death penalty…dependent as it is on perfect fairness…can never coexist with the realities of human emotion and political ambition. Comments like Attorney General Bondi’s do not simply threaten one man’s due process/trial…they expose why our society is fundamentally incapable of administering the death penalty.
*
*
*If you would like to support the Execution Intervention Project (the organization that financially supports Dr. Hood’s work), click here.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In