It's possible for one person to have varying views on multiple topics.
For example, I've been a registered Democrat all my life, but I'm also a gun owner and pro death penalty.
People vary. Nobody expects purity top to bottom.
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
57 points (83.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2072 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I would like to have a respectful disagreement.
I put forward that while it is understandable to desire the death penalty when serving justice, that the government should not enjoy that power. That it is too often erroneous in it's prosecution of justice, if not occasionally willfully so, to be entrusted with the power to execute any criminal, no matter the crime or preponderance of evidence.
Your rebuttal, sir/madame/all else.
I believe that the death penalty needs to be reserved for the most severe crimes, it shouldn't be handed out willy nilly like Texas does.
Case in point, this asshole, there is no "correcting" this behavior. The only response society should have given him is "better luck next time."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westley_Allan_Dodd
It's a travesty this asshole was allowed to plead out of a death penalty:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Weaver_III
Is the death penalty over used? Absolutely. Is it unfairly applied racially? No doubt about it.
I see those as arguments to correct it and keep it in order to remove literal monsters. It's not about punishment, or even deterrent, it's about telling another human being "What you have done is beyond redemption, there's nothing left for you here."
I see those as arguments to correct it
It's administered by humans and so there will always be error, intentional or otherwise.
You're saying you're comfortable with the state occasionally straight up murdering the wrong guy.
Not at all, read the two cases I linked, they are abdolute monsters and there is no question about it. 0% chance of "the wrong guy".
The links aren’t really relevant. What about other cases where the state murdered an innocent person? Just because they get it right sometimes it doesn’t excuse the other times when they don’t.
I'm not excusing anything, I'm saying the inherent problems with the death penalty are excuses for correcting it and keeping it rather than getting rid of it.
There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated, I cited two proven examples.
There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated
And who gets to decide who falls under that? If you ask former (and possibly future) president Trump, the left is "vermin" and immigrants "poison the blood"; his pick for VP is happy to sign off on progressives being called "unhuman". Should these groups – in their view unequivocable monsters – be exterminated?
I'd say if you get caught cooking human body parts, any logical person would be capable of making that call.
That is your standard, theirs is different. So how do you decide which is right?
Killing and cooking another human being is never "right" unless you're stranded at sea or crashed in the mountains.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571
Okay, and they would argue that being progressive is never "right". You refuse to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is that you are assuming a moral baseline that – while I'm sure is reasonable – simply not enough people share for it to be a given.
Ok. I see no reason to continue this discussion if you’re just going to ignore the point I’m making. One last time: the system can’t be “corrected”, there will always be errors, innocent people will die.
Absolutely not. When you are caught with photographs of a murdered kid hanging in your closet and their underwear kept as a trophy there is no "error" there.
Again, you didn't read the links I posted or understand the first thing I am saying. There is such a thing as uncontested guilt. In those cases, the death penalty absolutely should apply.
There can always be error. I'm not saying that there is on the two cases you keep bringing up but the sad fact is that prosecutors can withhold exonerating evidence, defense council can be next to useless, judges can be biased, defendants can have mental health issues and developmental problems and so on.
You can't just hand wave these concerns away and advocate for executing only the people who confess and send the rest to prison for life. That distinction is too messy and open to abuse.
I'M not talking about contested cases, I'm talking about monsters with human body parts cooking on their stove and in their fridge:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
Or buried in their crawlspace:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy
These are the sorts of cases the death penalty should be reserved for. Horrific crimes, no concievable evidence of innocence.
There's nuance here you're just not willing to accept, that's why you keep bringing up the worst of the worst like that's a persuasive argument.
There's a sliding scale of criminality. At some point someone has to make a determination between the most egregious, who are executed, and less vicious crimes where the defendant is jailed indefinitely. The person who is making that determination cannot ever be wrong for your approach to work.
That's my point, mistakes were and are being made because that's what happens when you ask people to make these decisions.
Because, as I've stated from the very start, I believe the death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst.
It might mean only applying it once or twice a decade, but in cases of monsters we need to have that option.
That's not how the legal system works, at all.
Your slightly strange obsession with "monsters" is clouding your ability to think critically on this issue.
Again, please read what I said from the beginning. You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying in favor of your own set opinion.
From my very first comment I stated that the death penalty is problematic, but that it should be reformed and kept for the most egregious crimes.
I get "that's not the way it is now", I'm arguing that it should be changed and kept and not just abandoned just because it's currently mis-applied.
In my state, the Governor single handedly put on hold every death penalty case. There were, I think, 17 of them.
In MOST cases, life in prison seems adequate.
https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2015/11/randy_guzek_sentenced_to_death.html
Double murder commited during a robbery? That's pretty mundane for a death penalty case. By all means, let's put him away for life.
Then there was this guy:
He strangled his wife and three little kids, stuffed them in suitcases, threw their bodies off a cliff, and fled to Mexico. There's no "error" there, there's no "extenuating circumstances". He betrayed the trust of his own children and murdered them, ages 4, 3 and 2. Fuck that guy.
You seem to be ignoring what I’m saying in favor of your own set opinion.
Go look in the mirror, you're describing yourself, not me.
Look at the examples you keep referring to. How to you make the distinction between the two examples you mention? The law does not and changing it to accommodate a distinction between run of the mill murder and murder + icky things is ridiculous.
Because one person murdered their own minor children. That's a huge violation of trust, then they violated the corpses in their attempt to escape.
Robberies gone bad happen all the time, what Longo did was a violation of human norms.
Right, so straight up murder = life in prison. Murder but you also fuck the corpse = straight to the gas chamber.
Weird.
This is a pretty reasonable take on the death penalty, one I actually pretty closely align with, even with as much as I don't like it. It needs to be the absolute last resort for only the most heinous and indefensible of crimes.
Ultimate penalty for ultimate crimes.
I would hypothetically be for the death penalty for heinous crimes if our judicial system was 100% foolproof. Unfortunately, false convictions happen surprisingly often, there have even been cases of death row inmates being exonerated. I don't think the benefits of the death penalty justify even one single wrongful death, so practically I'm against it.
In the two cases I listed there was no question of guilt. No problem throwing the death penalty at them.
I don't know the details of those two cases, so perhaps. As a policy it's still subject to the existence of false convictions though, so not worth it to me
Nothing more, nothing less.
What would you say about using the death penalty in a case where corporate mismanagement causes hundreds of deaths, and all those deaths can very clearly traced back to one decision made by one individual, who knew and also should have known the potential consequences?
Something like the Boeing planes falling out of the sky.
I don't see that as being a death penalty case unless the person involved did it with the intent of killing as many people as possible.
Bernie endorsed him, that's enough for this race.
The photo of Walz in the thumbnail just made me realize that he is the antithesis of Trump physically.
He has very pale skin (not trying to hide it with a shit load of orange toner).
He's proudly bald (not trying to hide that with a ridiculously elaborate comb-over).
He's a very cheerful and open person (not hiding behind a manufactured aura of authority).
Yes, he's significantly younger than Trump. But my point is that Walz is leaning into his image. He's clearly comfortable in his own skin (as the saying goes). And he doesn't need to try to exude authority or demand respect because he exhibits and gets those through his attitude and his actions.
It's refreshing. In an era where appearance is everything and there's so much posturing and focus on looks and stage demeanor, his candidness and positivity is naturally infectious.
Harris also seems content in her own skin. And it's tougher for her because of the stereotypes associated with her gender. But she juggles those expectations while not fixating on it.
Not sure. What I am sure of is he's NOT Vance.
Centrists are progressive in the US. They're not leftist, but they're still further left than most of the Democratic Party.
Overton window has shifted so far to the right that Donald trump is a normal candidate and has been for almost a decade.
Unrelevant! Don't vote fascist.
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Vox:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/366201/tim-walz-record-governor-progressive-agenda