21 Hang 'em!

"Hang 'em!"
In this chilling political satire, three political staffers—John, Mark, and Matt—meet in a conference room to brainstorm policy ideas for an incumbent US President's potential second term. The conversation, which starts with a vague desire to "take it to the next level," quickly devolves into a disturbingly casual discussion about making capital punishment for murder a policy priority.

Mark proposes a radical and horrifying idea: using a newly approved law for capital punishment in all 50 states to prosecute and execute any woman who has had an abortion, which the men repeatedly define as "murder". As the meeting progresses, the trio debates the finer points of this proposal, including making the punishments public, displaying the bodies for seven days, and using recyclable aluminum poles and stainless steel screws. They even consider adding electronic signs with details of the "crime" and selling ad space or obituaries.

The plan becomes more outlandish as they consider retroactive punishment, possibly targeting every woman who has had a legal abortion since Roe v. Wade. They calculate this could affect millions of women, casually throwing out numbers like "thirty seven, call it forty, million women". The episode concludes with John instructing Mark and Matt to draft a policy document on the abortion idea, while tabling an even more extreme suggestion from Mark about revisiting the "three-fifths-of-a-person issue" from the Constitution.

Themes of the Story

The script explores several dark themes:

• Dehumanization and Casual Cruelty: The most striking theme is how the characters discuss monstrous ideas with a frighteningly detached and business-like demeanor. They talk about hanging, displaying bodies, and executing millions of women as if they are discussing any other mundane policy detail, complete with jokes and laughter. The use of terms like "moral hazard," "transparency," and "states rights" highlights how political jargon can be used to sanitize and justify horrific acts.
  
  
• The Slippery Slope of Political Extremism: The story illustrates how seemingly small steps can lead to extreme and violent outcomes. The men begin with a broad discussion about "priorities" and "taking it to the next level" before quickly escalating to capital punishment for abortion, public hangings, and the idea of retroactive application. The final conversation about the three-fifths compromise serves as a final jolt, showing that their capacity for extreme thought is not limited to a single issue.
  
  
• The Perversion of Justice and Language: The script repeatedly uses the phrase "abortion is murder" to justify their plans, demonstrating how a simple, repeated statement can become the foundation for a radical and violent policy. The characters twist concepts like "justice," "transparency," and "fairness" to rationalize their proposed acts of mass execution. Their lack of concern for legal processes, such as trials, further underscores a complete disregard for due process in the pursuit of their goals.

What is Scripts-Aloud?

Scripts Aloud brings drama right into your ears. By using text-to-speech software, theater scripts go from the page into drama, every week. Typically 10-minute scripts are presented in each episode. It's like having a Theater Festival - right on your phone!

Hang ‘em!
by Rick Regan, August 28, 2020

Characters:
John: Manager of political operations
Mark: political staffer
Matt: political staffer
The story concerns the political concerns about what should be the
policy priorities of the incumbent US President, upon re-election.
This work is fictional satire.

[Scene: office building, conference room. John is the
manager. He is alone, sitting at a table reading his
phone.]
MARK:
(pokes his head in the door)
Hey, John. Can I grab you for a minute?
JOHN:
Sure. What’s up? Here sit down.
MARK:
I was thinking about something and wanted to run it by you.
JOHN:
OK. Shoot.
MARK:
Well with the upcoming re-election, I was thinking about the next
term.
JOHN:
Yeah, me too. Hard to work out what the priorities should be. We’ve
gotten so much done, I’m not sure how we take it to the next level –
for the next four years.
MARK:
Right. Well, we made a lot of progress on capital punishment. I was
thinking that we take the next step on abortion.
JOHN:
What do you mean?
MARK:
Well, abortion is murder, right?
JOHN:
Right. Abortion is murder.
MARK:
And we just got capital punishment for murder approved in all fifty
states.
JOHN:
Yeah…
MARK:
I think we have the opportunity to knit the two ideas together and
really make some progress.
JOHN:
How is that?
MARK:
Capital punishment for any woman who has had an abortion.
JOHN:
Interesting. Just across the board?
MARK:
Well, abortion is murder.
JOHN:
Right. Abortion is murder.
MARK:
So we look at all the records of women who have had abortions and
justice is finally served, for murder.
JOHN:
Hang on. Let’s loop Matt into this.
(buzzes and intercom)
JOHN:
Matt, can you come into the conference room for a minute? Got a thing
we’re trying to hash out.
MATTHEW:
(through intercom) Sure. Let me finish this thing and I’ll be right
in.
JOHN:
(through intercom) Great.
JOHN:
Are you thinking about an campaign timeline?
MARK:
Probably not a positive before the election.
JOHN:
Hmmm. Right. May generate more negative energy than positive among the
base.
MARK:
Right.
MATTHEW:
Hey, guys. What’s up?
JOHN:
You tell him.
MARK:
OK. So thinking about the next term, I was kicking around the idea of
capital punishment for abortion.
MATTHEW:
Capital punishment?
MARK:
Well, abortion is murder.
MATTHEW:
True. Abortion is murder.
JOHN:
So, thinking about the progress we made with capital punishment in all
fifty states…
MATTHEW:
I see where you’re going with this. Murder is murder.
MARK:
Right. Murder is murder, and the punishment for murder is death.
MATTHEW:
I see. Hmmm… Maybe we could have a facility in, spitballing here,
Utah? To process the punishments? Like, centralized.
JOHN:
I see a moral hazard there. It would seem like a death camp or
something.
MARK:
Right, we’re not NAZI’s.
MATTHEW:
Right. HA-ha-ah!
JOHN:
Ah-ha-ha!
MARK:
Heh! Heh! Right?
JOHN:
Right.
MARK:
No, I think transparency has to be the watchword. Like sunshine.
MATTHEW:
I see. Ok, so state by state then?
JOHN:
Right. And public.
MATTHEW:
Trials? Public trials?
MARK:
Executions. People have to see the punishment.
MATTHEW:
Hmmm.. Like a public hanging.
MARK:
Right. So people know it is actually happening. Not just on TV.
Anybody can fake TV.
JOHN:
Right! Ha-ha-ha!
MATTHEW:
Yeah! Ha-ha-ha!
MARK:
Heh-heh-heh! I know, right? Heh!
MATTHEW:
So just so that I’m clear, you want to hang every woman who has had an
abortion in America. Is that it?
MARK:
Well, abortion is murder.
JOHN:
Abortion is murder.
MATTHEW:
And the law of the land is that murderers are sentenced to death.
JOHN:
All 50 states.
MARK:
And not just execution. There should be a requirement to display the
body for some period of time. Maybe seven days?
JOHN:
That would be transparent. No question of justice not being served.
Crime. Punishment.
MATTHEW:
Seven days, though. That’s a lot to display a dead body. You thinking
outside?
MARK:
I don’t know. I guess I was thinking, you know, like the Romans, to
display the body of the criminals along public streets.
MATTHEW:
Just, like, along Main Street, USA?
MARK:
Yeah. In a row, I suppose.
MATTHEW:
At eye level? Couldn’t somebody just come up and take the body away?
JOHN:
We could use aluminum poles. And elevate them.
MATTHEW:
Interesting. Aluminum is recyclable.
MARK:
I hadn’t gone this far but maybe attach the body with, like, stainless
steel screws. That way they won’t rust if it is raining and they are
reusable.
MATTHEW:
Re-use and Re-cycle. I like it. Part of a Green initiative.
JOHN:
Shows we are woke to the environment.
MATTHEW:
But one thing. You want to hang the criminal, and then display the
body? Why not combine the two? Make the display the capital
punishment.
JOHN:
Like the Romans? Hmmm.
MARK:
Kill two birds with one stone.
MATTHEW:
Kill two birds, Ha! Ha! I see what you did there.
JOHN:
Heheheheh!
MARK:
Oh! Right. Heh!
JOHN:
So maybe use an X-shape? Or a T-shape?
MATTHEW:
Something like that. Maybe we don’t want to get too lost in the weeds
of the specifics.
MARK:
Yeah, maybe consult an expert or something.
JOHN:
Are you stuck on hanging?
MARK:
Well, no, but that is what comes to mind.
JOHN:
Because I am going to call States Rights on this and say that some
states may want to do it differently. Maybe one state doesn’t have a
lot of rope. Maybe some states have a pharma industry and want to use
their drugs.
MATTHEW:
Or an oil and gas state. They may want to burn them at the stake. I
don’t think we can specify.
MARK:
Yeah, I see what you mean. And I guess the method doesn’t really
matter. I mean, abortion is murder.
JOHN:
Right. Abortion is murder.
MATTHEW:
Getting back to the public thing. Why not just have it on TV? Like a
new CSPAN channel.
MARK:
CSPAN8, The Ocho!
MATTHEW:
The Ocho! Heh!
JOHN:
Hehehehe! The Ocho.
MARK:
Well that’s funny but I think one of the key aspects is the
transparency again. If it is on TV, even The Ocho!, it is subject to
suspicion of being faked.
JOHN:
Like a loop of last year?
MARK:
Yeah, in a million ways. That’s why, I think, the punishments have to
be public. And local. I’m thinking at county courthouses. All across
America.
MATTHEW:
From sea to shining sea?
JOHN:
Wait. Again, I am thinking this is a state-level issue. Not a county
sheriff, Bull Connor kind of thing. This has to be driven by the
legislatures.
MARK:
Well we’ll have the courts in lock step so I’m thinking we go for a
Constitutional Amendment.
JOHN:
An amendment?
MARK:
Right. Transparency is the key. Like a bright clear arrow. Declare
abortion is murder and that justice is only satisfied by capital
punishment, publicly and for the body to be displayed.
MATTHEW:
What if there was a sign on each post that had the name and specifics
of the crime?
JOHN:
As in, Here is Jane Doe, convicted of murder by abortion.
MARK:
I like that.
MATTHEW:
Crazy thought: what if it was an electronic sign so it could be
updated with details of the crime. Became pregnant at seventeen and
decided a baby was inconvenient.
JOHN:
Or, Raped by her uncle when she was 18.
MATTHEW:
Or 16.
JOHN:
Or 15.
MATTHEW:
Or 14.
MARK:
Right. We could detail the crime.
MATTHEW:
You know…. Again, just throwing it against the wall… We could have
extra space at the bottom of the screen where we could sell
advertising space.
JOHN:
Better than that, or along with, we could let the family provide an
obituary. Fill out the picture. Who wouldn’t pay for that?
MARK:
Right. Heh!
MATTHEW:
Ms. Doe was raped at 14 by her uncle Lou but, after her abortion, went
on to finish her nursing degree and practiced as a school nurse
faithfully for thirty-five years. Much beloved by her family, her
husband Jack, their three children, and recently a first grandchild.
MARK:
That’s gold!
JOHN:
I like it.
MATTHEW:
Or, Ms. Doe was involved with a politician when she volunteered as a
campaign staffer. When she became pregnant, she was told to make the
baby, “go away”.
JOHN:
A politician. Hee heheh!
MATTHEW:
Heh-heh-heh!
MARK:
That’s funny.
JOHN:
So we need a ratification strategy for all fifty states.
MATTHEW:
Wait. One question: what are the boundaries of the crime? Anybody
ever?
MARK:
I was thinking retroactive to the start of the President’s term.
JOHN:
I like it for practical reasons but I’m not sure if it would pass
muster with the Supreme Court. It seems like an arbitrary starting
point.
MATTHEW:
Ok. Let’s go back to Roe v. Wade. Any woman who voluntarily sought an
abortion, legally at the time, would be liable for murder conviction
now.
JOHN:
That’s interesting. Since it was legal there would be a definitive
starting point. I like it.
MARK:
And since there would be medical records of the events, then legal, we
should be able to identify every abortion in the country from that
point forward.
JOHN:
My god, just think of all the murders.
MARK:
Makes me sick. That’s why I was thinking about extending our progress
on murder to finally seek justice for the unborn. By hanging.
JOHN:
Still stuck on the hanging. Listen, maybe we pitch it as hanging to
make the images real but we’ll have to compromise once we get down to
brass tacks.
MATTHEW:
And I don’t love the public display thing. I still think it would be a
lot more efficient on TV.
MARK:
No. See the public punishment is the public demonstration of justice
for the unborn. The system is fair, transparent and equal. Justice
requires transparency all the way along. Don’t you agree? I mean,
abortion is murder.
JOHN:
He’s right. Abortion is murder.
MATTHEW:
Abortion is murder.
MARK:
So the punishment, by hanging or otherwise, requires the public
display.
MATTHEW:
I like the aluminum T-shape idea. We could prototype that for trials.
JOHN:
Speaking of trials, won’t we need to litigate and have trials for all
of the criminals?
MARK:
I don’t think so. If we have the medical records, it will show that
the person voluntarily committed murder of the unborn. We will have
the details of the crime. No need for a trial.
MATTHEW:
Is that transparent though? Just showing medical records isn’t enough
for a judge or jury.
MARK:
It will be if we tell them it will be. We own the court so we can just
tell them they are guilty.
JOHN:
I guess that’s true. And if we have an amendment, that’s pretty
powerful too.
MATTHEW:
Do you think we can get three fourth of the states? That’s thirtyeight states. To ratify?
JOHN:
I think with strong leadership from the top, grassroots pressure from
the bottom, and some effective lobbying, we could get just about
anything ratified.
MARK:
And it’s not like this is a radical idea. You know? I mean, come on.
MATTHEW:
Yeah, I see what you mean. What kind of numbers are you looking at?
MARK:
Like criminal stats?
MATTHEW:
Yeah. How many women in the US have had abortions?
MARK:
The study I looked at, from 2017, said that one in four women will
have had an abortion by the time she is forty-five.
JOHN:
So with, say three hundred million Americans, half would be women for
one hundred and fifty million women. A quarter of that, thirty seven,
call it forty, million women we’d be talking about.
MARK:
Right.
MATTHEW:
That’s a lot of women.
MARK:
Right. That’s why we need the amendment. To be sure that justice is
served equally in America for the murdered unborn.
MATTHEW:
I see.
JOHN:
What about an enforcement arm? Do we leave it to the states or is this
a job for the FBI? Do we need a new agency?
MATTHEW:
I think you are back to a states’ rights issue. Won’t each state have
to handle it with their own resources? Wouldn’t a governor put up
opposition to a federal force coming in to prosecute a quarter of the
women in the state?
MARK:
Execute. To execute a quarter of the women in the state.
JOHN:
I see what you mean. National Guard maybe? Well, let’s table that for
the moment. We don’t want to get too far off in the weeds.
MARK:
Re-visiting the agenda for the next four years, I was wondering if we
want to raise the three-fifths-of-a-person issue. As a person who
respects the words of the founding fathers, I think we may have some
traction to go back to what Jefferson and Madison actually wrote.
MATTHEW:
You want to bring back slavery?
MARK:
No, no! Of course not. That would be crazy. It’s just that the
founding fathers wrote, actually wrote, in ink, that Africans should
be counted as three fifths of a person. If we restore the original
intent, that would have consequences for redistricting, for voting,
land owning and everything else. I’m just saying.
JOHN:
Matthew, let’s don’t get out over our skis here. I want you and Mark
to take the next two weeks and focus on delivering a working policy
document on your abortion idea. That will be hard enough to get
Congress to choke down, let alone re-visiting the three-fifths
proposition. Let’s circle back at the end of next week and see what
you have on paper. I’ll make some calls and take the temperature, of
the Oval and the Capital. I think I’ll call Jude over at Justice and
float the trial balloon with him. What do you think?
MARK:
I’m excited.
MATTHEW:
Yeah, we could really make a move.
JOHN:
All right, fellas. Let’s get moving!
MARK:
Yes, sir!
MATTHEW:
Yes, sir!
(end)