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:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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".

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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....."

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dufkm@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

Zoroastrianism.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Zoroastrianism.

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.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not sure that's true. Some people legitimately stop at life in prison and always oppose the death penalty.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Again, I don't know if that's true. People seem to have very strange absolute moral ideas sometimes.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago

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.