In America, only a few States still have the death penalty. Once the prosecuting attorneys deliver the case in chief, a jury of its citizens determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. If found guilty, the accused faces a judge who follows strict legal guidelines in determining an appropriate sentence or verdict. Only in the most heinous crimes is that verdict death.

Some view death as a verdict we all suffer. But death is not a penalty for our crimes. It is simply nature. All living things die and are replaced by other living things. Some living organisms kill other living organisms in order to survive longer than others. Killing is one mode of survival, both as individual organisms and as a species. Killing within a species is usually a form of competition for power, territorial hegemony, or sustaining resources like food or shelter. But our species grew to recognize that internecine extermination was counterproductive, and that communal cooperation and/or collaboration made us dominant over all other lifeforms. Humans came to recognize that killing each other can violate norms that assure our survival and benefit human society. In other words, our conception of justice is born of a concern for the general welfare. Murder, therefore, is defined as a crime against humanity and is punishable in a court of law. Within civilized societies, only a conviction by a jury of peers can subject an accused murderer to a sentence of death. And that death is the verdict of a judge acting in accordance with the law and the will of the court’s jurors.

So, when is death not a verdict? Obviously, people die in wars, often by chance and unjustly. (I wrote a novel about the injustice and inhumanity of war.) And people die of natural causes. As my high school Latin teacher taught us, leges natura non cognoscit (“nature knows no laws” for it is above human laws). But only in a court of law can death be a verdict rendered by a judge. At least, that verdict is authorized by the consensus of all civilized human societies. However, when this civilized consensus is ignored and death is dealt without trial, jury, or a non-partial verdict, then a wholly other form of crime is committed. That form of crime is lawless and likely political. It is usually committed by those who grasps absolute power without regard for the norms and/or laws of any civilized human society.

Genocide and the war crimes of national pariahs often draw little attention in main street America. But how can we ignore crimes committed by our own government? For the last three years we have witnessed an unfettered attack on the lives of fellow human beings at the hands of our own government. Our President ordered a zero tolerance immigration policy that resulted in family separations, the interment of children under inhuman conditions, and the return of migrants to violence and possible death in the northern triangle countries of Central America—often to countries other than those from which they matriculated. This policy resulted in many unaccounted deaths among the deported, including the deaths of at least seven children held in US custody. Our Department of Health and Human Services still cannot account for over 1500 of those children separated from their parents and lost under its jurisdiction. There has yet to be any accounting of how many died as a result of being interred and/or deported. Who delivered the verdict of death to these immigrants and their children?

On the day after a call from the Turkish leader, our President ordered an American troop withdrawal from the Syrian/Turkish border. Immediately, Turkish troops spilled over the border and engaged in a genocidal attack on the homes and families of our Kurdish allies in order to kill or vacate all Kurds within 20 miles of the border. Families fled with nothing other than the clothes on their backs. Initially, an estimated 300,000 Kurds, including 70,00 children, escaped to neighboring countries. Many died in the artillery bombardment preceding the Turkish troops. Others died and/or were raped in their homes before they could escape or find refuge. We do not know how many died in makeshift refugee camps after the Turkish invasion. Who delivered this verdict of death to these Kurdish families and their children?

Currently, during the worst pandemic in over a hundred years, our President has convened a team to orchestrate a partial end to home isolation by the end of April. He wants to reopen America to business and put some of us back to work. Many of us “white collar workers” are working at home and could continue doing so until our country reaches some level of control over this viral contagion. But the “blue collar workers” who harvest our crops, drive our public transportation systems, stock our grocery shelves, cook and serve us food in our restaurants, care for our children, our elderly, and our sick should put their lives at risk? Their contribution to American society is crucial to our society and essential to the American economy. The need to protect them then is equally essential to any recovery from this pandemic. Who wants to deliver a verdict of death to this vital community?

It is the consensus of both healthcare professionals and economists that the best strategy for reviving the American economy is a robust attempt to control this dangerous virus by mitigating its spread. That strategy involves home sequestering and public self-distancing. Though mitigation would be significantly enhanced if it could target populations already infected, the test kits required to scope the extent of contagion are not available in sufficient quantity. It is impossible, therefore, to know how many Americans are already infected. Testing is mainly occurring when those infected show up sick in the Emergency Room of hospitals. As a result, less than one percent of our population has been tested for COVID-19. And our healthcare professionals have no idea how many more Americans are already infected. Meanwhile, the virus is now migrating from population centers to rural America.

Our healthcare professionals are overwhelmed wherever the contagion flourishes. Further, protective equipment shortages put our frontline care workers in jeopardy. Many have already died. Since the intelligence community warned the President of this impending pandemic over three months ago, there is no excuse for ignoring the preparations required by documented pandemic plans prepared by previous Administrations. But those plans were ignored by this President. In fact, he fired officials in the NSC, FEMA, and his Bio-defense team, thereby sidelining the very experts who could have enacted a strategic response to this impending threat. He made himself the sole authority left to address a national emergency. But even then, he failed to recognize his responsibility to declare a national emergency. After belatedly executing the act that gave him emergency powers, he insisted on deferring to the governors his responsibility to develop a national strategy. As a result, different States competed for resources like ventilators and protective equipment with different levels of success or failure. The life/death results of this diverse and chaotic effort were left to beleaguered healthcare professionals to address, even while under-equipped with the necessary protective equipment and overwhelmed with the sick and dying. So, who can we hold responsible for the deaths of these healthcare professionals? How many have been infected and died as a result of the Administration’s delayed response to this pandemic?

Of course, a pandemic is a natural occurrence. But the President’s unwillingness to exercise his executive authority or to act in a timely manner to a national emergency is irresponsible. His failure to act has resulted in a death sentence for many innocent Americans. Although it is difficult to ascribe intent to somebody who acts on a whim, a “hunch,” or a “very strong feeling,” he does provide political justifications for his actions— “I want to open the economy.” For three years he has taken credit for a booming economy and made the economy his main justification for reelection. Is he now willing to risk the lives of more Americans to assure a political victory? Are we all now subject to his death verdict?

My questions may appear too harsh. Many presidential decisions can have life or death consequences. But few draw a clear moral imperative without any downside. For example, how can the mistreatment of immigrant families be justified? They are not the rapist and murderers the President claimed are victimizing Americans. In fact, there is not and never was any evidence to support his claim. His zero-tolerance policy was a death verdict for innocents. In a similar vein, what did the Kurds do to deserve his betrayal of them to a Turkish invasion? They fought as proxies in America’s war against terrorists, losing thousands of their own soldiers in the process. His withdrawal of American troops from the Turkish border was a death verdict for innocents. Now he threatens to deliver this same verdict to Americans still untested for COVID-19. We can only hope that his team develops a balanced strategy that highlights viral hotspots for extensive testing and surveillance screening. We should, however, fear his peevish reaction to wise advice where he defends a whim and exercises judgment without concern for consequences—specifically, human “life-or-death” consequences. He values his image more than the general welfare of those he vowed to serve. And his reelection is more about tightening his hold on the power of his office to quash all his self-perceived political enemies. We should not be surprised when he issues a death verdict without any remorse.

The answer to the question in my title should be obvious. If, however, a death verdict is rendered outside of a court of law, then, whether executed directly or indirectly, it could represent a crime against humanity. If done for crass political gain, then it is indeed a crime. In a constitutionally framed democratic republic, it is also a violation of the oath of office, of the trusts of the American electorate, and of common human decency.