Last week, Texas man Gary Graham was put to death amidst much controversy. Graham had argued he hadn’t received a fair trial, that his lawyer was incompetent, and that the death penalty has evolved from what was intended to be a tool for justice into a holocaust for innocent black men on death row.

Graham was executed by lethal injection the night of June 22, after a barrage of last-minute appeals and a statement by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, insisting that he had faith that justice had been served.

Anyone who was watching CNN’s coverage of the execution last week might have run across what I saw, although I could hardly believe my eyes and suppress my laughter.

This sounds insensitive considering the magnitude of Graham’s case, but what I saw can only be described as ridiculous at best, offensive at worst.

There was a two-person panel discussing Graham’s case. On one side was Asa Hutchinson, a Republican probably best known for being one of the House managers during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings. He’s worked on Bush’s campaign, and he was arguing Bush’s case, that Graham had been proven guilty and the sentence of death was appropriate. I disagree with him, but fair enough.

On the other side — this is the part that inspired my laughter — wasn’t a lawmaker, a psychologist, anyone with any sort of expertise at all — it was Susan Sarandon, the Oscar-winning actress for “Dead Man Walking,” the 1996 movie about the relationship between a man sentenced to death and the nun who assumes the role of his spiritual counsel.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Susan Sarandon. She’s a great actress, a good role model for women, a female who speaks her mind — all that good stuff. But she’s not an expert on the death penalty. She’s a very good actress who starred in a movie about the death penalty. That’s it.

Sarandon is an activist against the death penalty, I don’t disagree with that. But I think Sarandon’s presence in the debate does more to hurt her cause than to help it. I’d like to believe that Sarandon’s intentions are good; I don’t see her or her paramour Tim Robbins as celebrities who are out just to get some face time.

I have confidence that Sarandon knows quite a bit about the death penalty; she must have done plenty of research for her role. I’m also not alleging that Asa Hutchinson is any more qualified than Sarandon just because he holds a public office, but that does make a difference.

The fact is, when celebrities take it upon themselves to become spokespeople for certain causes, not only are they risking public embarrassment, they are risking threatening the credibility of the movements they supposedly care about.

The problem stems from the fact that America’s culture is so celebrity-drenched, and when stars suddenly become activists, whether they’re sincere or not, the lines start getting too blurry. Are they actors or activists?

When the public knows so much about stars such as Sarandon, it almost becomes nearly impossible to take them seriously. We know about their love lives, their substance-abuse problems, their salaries, we even know whether they prefer Prada to Versace.

When we know so much about the frivolous details of their lives, it becomes difficult to take them seriously.

Take the Million Mom March, for example. The pictures that got published in many magazines weren’t just of everyday women who care a lot about the gun-control issue; there were tons of pictures published of Rosie O’Donnell (understandable, since she was one of the emcees of the event), Courtney Love, Reese Witherspoon and, of course, Sarandon.

These celebrities weren’t the real story of the Million Mom March. O’Donnell herself is one celebrity who’s recently come under fire for openly criticizing the NRA while a bodyguard for her young son applied for a gun permit.

When celebrities become outspoken about certain causes, the chance of their hypocrisy being exposed is greatly increased.

I guess you could take the other side to that debate: Celebrities have a lot of money and influence, and their place in the national spotlight gives them the opportunity to “make a difference.” But make a difference to whom?

The argument can be made that some celebrities (i.e. Michael J. Fox and Parkinson’s Disease) have given certain causes a prominence they might not have had before, but in most cases (i.e. Jane Fonda and Vietnam, any model and the anti-fur crusade), they just end up looking like they haven’t the faintest clue about the issue they’re championing.

Celebrities shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. They can’t insist on their privacy if they choose to put themselves in the spotlight.

They can’t have the most mundane details about their lives on display in the press if they want to be taken seriously as activists.

I certainly enjoy reading gossip about the stars.

But on the same token, I don’t need Susan Sarandon to tell me how I should feel about the death penalty.

---

Kate Kompas is a junior in journalism and mass communication. She is editor in chief of the Daily.