Historians have long documented how the modern death penalty emerged as a supposed “solution” to the problem of lynchings, racial or otherwise. A method to exact justice behind closed doors, to avoid spectacle. The death penalty is supposed to be a neutral alternative. And yet, at least at the federal level, it depends on who’s in charge.

Starting in 2020, the Trump administration swiftly executed 12 men and one woman in Terre Haute, Indiana, where all federal executions take place. Far more than any administration in modern history. And, curiously, the execution spree initially appeared to spare one typically over-represented demographic: Black men. The feds waited all summer before scheduling the execution of a Black person. But once they started, they didn’t stop; every man selected to die after last summer was Black.

A year later, the question remains: why was the execution spree split along racial lines? In this episode, we try to find out.

We’ll hear from the first African American targeted by the U.S. government for execution in two decades — and find out why his loved ones threw out the clemency rulebook and took his case directly to the American people. And we’ll hear from experts convinced that justice officials considered race when they selected which people to kill — and when. Why that might be, and what it says about the federal death penalty’s ability to deliver justice, and mercy, without bias.

Coming up in Episode 6:

What happens when a prosecutor changes her mind and tries to save someone she helped condemn to death?

—

Rush to Kill is available at wfiu.org/rushtokill.

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

More podcasts from WFIU