462
Trump rages at Biden for wrecking his plans for executions: ‘Makes no sense’
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
462 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2229 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I'm overall glad about this, leaving 3 unpardoned inmates really corrupts the "moral stance against federal executions" justification and makes it seem like he is in favor of capital punishment but only for people he thinks deserve it. It also makes it seem like he believes it's his decision to decide who gets to live and that rubs me the wrong way.
Even the most die-hard anti-death-penalty believer has their limits. It may take Hitler-level atrocities to get there, or maybe even worse. But everyone has their own line in the sand where even they will say "If there was ever a case in favor of the death penalty, this is that case." That line is in a completely different place for everybody.
Since the President has final pardon power, he actually does get to decide who gets to live. It's a power granted to him by the Constitution.
Yep I'm anti-death penalty, the 3 that didn't get pardoned should probably just live the rest of their lives in prison. But I'm not going to shed any tears for them.
He didn't pardon the others, he commuted their sentences to life in prison. Of note, the 3 civilians left are terrorists who committed mass murder and were caught red handed. There are also 4 people on military death row who remain. One is also a mass murdering terrorist; one committed literal treason, attacking his own unit in the middle of the night overseas; one is a serial killer/rapist; and one took three trials over 4 decades to convict of a group murder.
They should probably commute his sentence too...
Yeah sorry that's what I meant, long day at work. no sympathy for the people on death row, either way they should not be allowed back into normal society.
I understand that and, if you ask me, those 3 guys are pos. My problem is that he said he did it to take a moral stance against death penalty. You can't do that and go "except for these 3 cases".
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.
Nope. The most die hard, anti death penalty believer has no limits and literally says "we do not have the right to take anyone's life, even if they are Hitler. In fact it would be better for society if we got to try to rehabilitate Hitler".
And I agree with them.
People can downvote you but aren't even thinking it out. Hitler right now is still a projected person for the far-right nazi movement and is brought up constantly. What if he had been imprisoned and actually got mental health care that doesn't really exist in most prison populations currently (globally that is). If you had a senior Hitler, with life imprisonment, painting fields of flowers with jewish and little blonde/blond kids running around, it would be a totally different outcome in this day and age.
To be possible though the prison system would need completely reworked. In our current system I don't think it would have the same outcome (since our system has a different purpose than rehabilitate currently). I also think people shouldn't be able to communicate as effectively with the outside world without extra censorship (that whole no harm to society thing, can still happen if they're voicing action or calls to violence, happens still currently.).
I have no such limits. Death, as a penalty, is always unjust because humans do not have free will. Every action, every thought, has some biological, or neurochemical, or material basis for it's happening. Inflicting any form of punishment or suffering on the qualia, the conscious experience of someone, for the illusion of choice we believe to have, is actually just inflicting suffering on innocent beings, because we have no choice.
Now, that's not too say I'm anti-violence. But I firmly believe that every piece of violence should be evaluated as if it was being done against an innocent person. Things like "guilt" or "they deserve it" should not be taken into the calculation when doing violence at all, only the benefits it has to the rest of society. If you are in the position to levy death as a punishment, I would rather just see them locked up for life.
By this logic, all laws are unjust and humans aren't responsible for their actions.
Yes! Humans are indeed, not culpable for their actions because we have no free will.
Now, I won't go into the nuances of laws here, but I do find punishing people for the sake of punishment, or out of some sense of "they deserve it" to be problematic because all humans are innocent.
I'd love a source for this. Personally, I don't think we should be in the business of killing defenseless people in any context.
Why do you need a source for a fundamental part of human nature? subjectivity
Google/Bing/DDG/Kagi the word...
Because people like to make claims about human nature that simply aren't generally true. Rather than recognizing the way complex circumstances can shape human feelings and behaviors, I frequently see people break it down into simple platitudes like "humans are lazy, greedy, etc", rather than recognizing complex realities like the way power erodes empathy.
Isn't that my precise point but more words?
Humans are complex. Different people will have different values and we'll have different lines. This is fundamental to the individualistic nature of people.
Asking for a source on something ingrained in our everyday lives is almost a bad faith statement. That's like asking for a source on every piece of casual conversation just to shut it down.
Do you really need a source that tells you that different people have different values and weigh the problems around them differently?
nvm I got mad and replied to the wrong comment. Oops.
I think you're taking some vague statements and trying to proclaim a universal scientific truth out of it.
"Even the most die-hard anti-death-penalty believer has their limits."
I’d love a source for this.
fundamental part of human nature. Subjective: (Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual.
(you mean, like the complete opposite of your statements can also be true?!)
This is fundamental to the individualistic nature of people. Asking for a source on something ingrained in our everyday lives is almost a bad faith statement
So we have fundamental, ingrained states that you've declared to be unsourceable (scientifically) and is such a part of us that even bringing it up sounds like bad faith. Real "trust me bro, this is how it is" vibes with no clarity or justification.
That means the opposite of what you're arguing for though
How does it? Subjectivity is defined by the same things that cause a variance in values and differences in weights placed on problems of others.
Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Humans are complex we all have differing values.
Right, so some might have an absolute no-killing value.
What if they raped a baby to death right in front of you?
Then I'd be a witness and therefore not qualified to pass judgement in their case. Conflict of interest.
Man fuck you, you are guilty as well. That's an instant removal from society. You might want to get therapy you are missing a soul.
You're getting awfully worked up about the hypothetical baby you're using to justify murder.
Am I? Would you even try to stop it or would you wring your hands and wait for the police to show up?
The only thing that I can come to the conclusion is that two of the three are neo-nazis.
He could be sending a message, and that's what Trump is actually pissed about.
The Boston bomber I can't justify with that same line of thinking though.
Executions are barbaric, plus life in prison is far more cruel anyway.
That actually makes sense.
A world leader like the president is deciding on deaths every single day. You are right to think it's unsavory, but it certainly isn't unique to this pardoning.
That may be true but singling out 3 people who are currently harmless and saying "you get to die" feels somehow different.
He probably did that the day before and the day after.
well, regardless whether he or anyone believes it or not, it quite literally was his decision to make
Devil's advocate: do the last 3 deserve it? Are they unsafe to other inmates and also not possible candidates for rehabilitation and release to society?
If yes... Welp.
That's the point of taking a "moral stance against federal executions", though — nobody deserves it.
Yeah... Most people don't. Some do.