- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 federal death row inmates to life without parole, sparing all but three convicted of high-profile mass killings.
Biden framed the decision as a moral stance against federal executions, citing his legal background and belief in the dignity of human life.
Donald Trump criticized the move as senseless, vowing to reinstate the death penalty.
Reactions were mixed: some victims’ families condemned Biden, while others supported his decision. Human rights groups praised it as a significant step against capital punishment.
Right, but again…everybody has that point where they say “…except that case”. You and Biden just disagree on where that line is. Even the Pope is eventually going to look at someone who committed some heinous crimes and say “Dude, even the Bible says that shit ain’t cool…”
But not everybody is making a statement about morality. He’s purportedly saying “capital punishment is bad and we should get rid of it”. If you make exceptions, all you’re saying is that you’re in favor of keeping it around for really bad people, which is exactly where they are now.
People make exceptions for things they believe in all the time. Religion is a prime example; show me any established religion, and I’ll show you a few dozen beliefs associated with that religion that 99.9% of worshippers conveniently ignore. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe. That just means they have limits.
Zoroastrianism.
Any Crusader Kings player knows about the sister marriage
I’d be willing to bet that if you could even find someone practicing the religion, they’re not praying several times a day in a fire temple.
I’m not sure that’s true. Some people legitimately stop at life in prison and always oppose the death penalty.
I’m one of those. Capital punishment is obsolete in my opinion, since we no longer need to execute people to ensure that they don’t present danger to the civilized population in the future.
I’m confident. Granted, for some people that red line may require atrocities at or above Hitler levels. It may require atrocities that are comically unrealistic. But it’s there. Put up someone who killed a proverbial busload of school children. If that isn’t enough, two. “Yeah, I killed them all, and I raped them first, and I’ll do the same again if I ever escape.”. Someone’s gonna say “Yeah, OK, stick the needle in his arm”, just because they don’t want to take the .000001% chance that he actually does escape.
An extreme example, yes, but I’m sure you get the idea. Everybody’s got a breaking point.
Again, I don’t know if that’s true. People seem to have very strange absolute moral ideas sometimes.
That doesn’t necessarily mean their beliefs are absolute. It just means that the red line needed to shake those believes has yet to be found.
You’re completely missing the point and focusing on an individual. They’re stating the moral purpose of a SOCIETY. As in the society shouldn’t kill and it certainly shouldn’t be ONE individuals decision for that murder to take place. YOU might have a redline/breaking point, but society wouldn’t. It’s why ONE person isn’t the deciding factor on death, it’s a societies moral choice to do that and uphold that.
You guys can pretend that EVERYONE has a breaking point, that doesn’t mean you can’t have a society that doesn’t have the death penalty. I feel like these responses are just people trying to incite continued violence or justifying their own extremely vitriol need to kill those they deem less.