- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
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 must log in or register to comment.
The State should not be allowed to punish someone by killing them. Capital punishment is merely revenge with the government acting as the hitman. There’s no way to prevent an innocent person from being accidentally murdered. And those 40 people are proof that it doesn’t act as an effective deterrent.
It’s a barbaric practice and we need to end it.
99% of the time yes but the Hitler fact. Assad, Putin, etc. Actual large scale crimes against humanity
There is an adage that says “Hard cases make bad law”. In the end is a case of, what is preferred, let a guilt person go unpunished or punish an innocent person? I personally believe that it is never ok to punish an innocent person. And I think it is not even that extreme when we are talking about capital punishment or be “tough on crime”, it is more like, do um prefer to under punish some guilt people or over punish others including some innocents?
Yes and No.
I agree completely in a fallible system these executions ought never exist.
However creating a framework of rules with outcomes and holding all accountable to them is the most morally / ethically benign thing we do as humans.
The state is the only ethical executor of these decisions.
BUT the system is fallible and made up of fallible people and isn’t always steered for the moral / ethical and as such your last sentence is even more truthful than even you meant it.
I don’t think one should be executed if their moral framework doesn’t align with the laws created by the state.
I understand why we can’t do this today, but I would much prefer the exile method to execution.
When you hear the acts of each, you won’t believe that he did this. Makes no sense. Relatives and friends are further devastated. They can’t believe this is happening.
That’s because like Trump, those people don’t understand justice, they only understand revenge. Trump thinks literally everyone is a horrendous person who wants to wantonly murder others just like him. Control over whether someone lives or dies is the ultimate control, and the one Trump craves most. It’s super clear why this is so upsetting to him, he got his favorite type of domination and control taken away. His toys.
Remember that Trump said that “Relatives and friends are further devastated. They can’t believe this is happening.” Without source, and can be dismissed as something he made up on the spot. The families of the victims are a mixture of reactions some are in support some opposed and some can’t be found for comment.
Justice is a feeling. It’s not a factual thing. You can’t scientifically deduce whether justice has been served or not in a specific case.
Some people think eye for an eye is justice, some have other ideas of what justice is.
Yeah which is why we have legal guardrails - to protect us from folks who think “eye for an eye” is a sane way to operate in the 21st century. They can have their opinion, but I sure don’t want them setting what is legal.
Exactly this. People with primitive fairy tales telling them what is “justice” should not be setting the rules for anything.
I agree 100%, but I was never discussing what should be legal or illegal… Obviously any murder should be illegal. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
That doesn’t change my opinion that sometimes murder is needed to affect change and sometimes it’s even the morally right thing to do…
You honestly thought I was advocating for making murder legal?
Many people think murder shouldn’t be illegal actually (and unfortunately). We also have capital punishment in the states, which is just state sanctioned murder.
obviously any murder should be illegal. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
If you think it’s needed to affect change then I’m not sure you actually believe this statement as much as you say.
I challenge you to find a single person arguing in favor of making murder legal. I’ve never seen or heard anyone do that.
I think it can be needed sometimes throughout history when the inequality between rich and poor becomes too great, that doesn’t mean I think it should be legal…
You can’t say “something is necessary so I am cool with it” while also claiming you fully support its illegality. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. We declare things we do not want to happen at all to be illegal. Yes we accept there are limitations to how effective the law will be in stopping the behavior, but the goal is still 0 instances. If you split the difference at all you are bending your laws to suit your needs and rendering them ineffective in the long run. This is fundamental to a system built on laws. You accept limitations while also striving for perfect implementation and you don’t concoct special extra-legal situations where you ignore them. If you’re doing that then you need to change the law.
Back when slaves were legal it was illegal to kill a slave owner. I understand that and I think that’s how it needed to be. You can’t have laws that killing someone is legal.
On the other hand I don’t morally condemn the slaves that rose up and actually did kill their “owners”.
I absolutely can say something should be illegal but in certain cases I’m cool with it happening.
Check out restorative justice models. One in Colorado has boasted 95% victim satisfaction and recidivism crashed from 50 down to like 10%. We can use this data to demonstrate what justice models are better, regardless of a definitive definition.
Yeah, but that’s not profitable
I know those models and am all for them. I’m Scandinavian so I’m not at all for eye for an eye type of justice.
The original comment I was replying to said something along the lines of “these people don’t understand justice”.
I was just pointing out that justice is a feeling more than anything else. You can point out that restorative justice is a better way for society to go and it works better for most individuals too but if someone says that they don’t feel like justice has been served you can’t say they’re wrong.
They just have a different opinion on what justice is.
Some people think the earth is flat - that doesn’t mean it is.
Justice is a pretty nebulous abstract thing, I agree with that, but modern society has a pretty clear understanding that retribution isn’t Justice.
What does flat earth has to do with this? The shape of the earth is NOT an opinion. It’s a provable fact.
That’s why some people don’t get control over what happens to the convicted. We do know our justice system isnt perfect and makes more mastakes than what even the most rational person would find unacceptable. There is no going back once the state murders someone. And unless we have equal punishment for whomever caused a innocent person to be executed by the state. It should be outlawed in all cases.
Good conservative Christian’s LOVE killing!
Nothing says “pro life” like whining about not being able to murder someone.
Nothing shouts “Christian” than revenge murder.
imagine running on “the deficit” and then whining that you can’t spend millions to let the state kill someone.
Is trump cryingon social media about how he doesn’t get to kill 37 people on Christmas eve ?
Nice move by sleepy joe i guess
Yes, but both sides.
Well, Kamala had that laugh, so…
“The economy!”
-People who spent $41 billion three weeks later.
Santa told him he was getting an inmate to put to death in exchange for every single one of his felonies. Sorry I mean Satan told him.
Anyway he’s pissed that he got coal instead.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Death, as a penalty, is always unjust because humans do not have free will.
By this logic, all laws are unjust and humans aren’t responsible for their actions.
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.
Even the most die-hard anti-death-penalty believer has their limits.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
He could be sending a message, and that’s what Trump is actually pissed about.
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.
I don’t think the government should have the power to kill people as a punishment, with that said I’m also not upset that the sentences of these three weren’t commuted.
I don’t understand the reasoning. you can’t say you are anti death penalty and believe in dignity and sanctity of life or whatever but then turn around and say “except for these three motherfuckers”…
I don’t think the government should be able to execute them. However, I am human, they’re mass murders, and it’s a situation I have no control over, so I’m not going to feel bad about not feeling bad that they’re still on death row. I don’t get to choose how I feel, just how I act. If it were me making the decision, I’d like to think I’d have commuted their sentences as well, even though I probably would have felt bad about doing so.
Although also, thinking about your comment more, I guess I don’t really care about sanctity of life or anything like that. It’s more of a power problem for me. Some people deserve to be killed, however nobody should be making that judgement and following through, because it’s not something that can be accurately judged. No one should have that power, especially the people in charge. When someone dies who I feel deserves it, it not going to upset me. Would I have killed them? No. Would I have prevented their death if I could? Honestly, questionable, depending on the person and situation. Is that hypocritical? I don’t know, maybe. There might not be an effective difference, killing through inaction vs killing through action, but there feels like a difference to me. Life isn’t black and white, I’m driven by a malfunctioning blob of meat, and I do the best I can. I take great comfort in the fact I’m never going to have to make that choice. I hope this gives you some insight into how I view things.
i was talking about biden’s statements, not yours
Oh, my bad. Thanks for giving me cause for self reflection anyways
no worries, good talk
Yeah, it seems weird that a government of a country that one is a citizen of can choose to have you killed. But assisted suicide is illegal.
I kind of wonder if Biden is setting him up to execute Luigi and get on the wrong side of this current populist movement.
The fed has nothing to do with that. He’s being charged by the state of NY.TIL they added on a few federal charges.He is also being charged federally. And that is the capital case.
even if he does get convicted, any execution probably won’t happen in the next four years. death row appeals take a long time.
His incompetence killed hundreds of thousands his first term. This time he was hoping for a more direct approach. Biden spoiled his murderous fun.
Pretty clear donvict knows his qon “pro-life” fanbase is bloodthirsty, and they demand sacrifices.
Yea, this group largely believes an execution sends them to hell sooner to suffer more. As someone who isn’t religious, I’d rather they waste away in jail, as that is much more a punishment than a quick death.
Prison should be rehabilatative, not punitive
Prison is an sentence, thus a form of punishment, as well as a rehabilitation procedure, as well as mean of protection of the public.
Death sentence on the other hand, is a moronic form of punishment as well as ineffective,because it doesn’t prevent the crimes themselves
Prison is an sentence, thus a form of punishment, as well as a rehabilitation procedure, as well as mean of protection of the public.
Not in the United States, it isn’t. The system isn’t designed to rehabilitate offenders; it’s designed to encourage recidivism:
- Background and criminal record checks for jobs outside of high security or confidentiality fields.
- Background check for renting housing post release.
- Anti-homelessness and loitering laws.
- In some states where it hasn’t yet been banned, criminals may have to pay back the prison as part of parole conditions.
But, why would any civilized country allow that to happen? Because the 13th amendment has an exemption for criminals serving their punishment. Prisons can use inmates for mass labor and contracting while paying them a fraction of the value they are producing, generating profit.
I know of onlt one western country with death penalty: Belarus. And I’m pretty sure as soon as potato dictator dies, it will be abolished.
Provided that microdick Vlad doesn’t pull a Ukraine on the country for trying to have democracy, and entering the EU and NATO
It’s odd when you think about it. Republicans don’t want abortion but whole heartedly support executions. Democrats are against executions but whole heartedly support abortion. Welcome to America.
It’s more odd to me that the ones who believe in original sin and forgiveness for everything are the ones anti-abortion and pro-execution.
Conservatives aren’t anti-murder, they are pro-suffering.
They are anti-abortion, because they don’t ever get a chance to make the fetus suffer. And golly, the mother barely gets dehumanized at all.
Just think about all the in suffering that fetus skipped by not getting a disease that is easily preventable with a vaccination, and also, it will never know the hell of getting sick from drinking raw milk.What sits particularly strange to me is democrats that are against capital execution, but for vigilante killings. Any argument to be made against capital execution is a hundredfold true for vigilante execution.
Class comrades are class comrades.
If you really don’t understand why, then I would point you to a quote from Warren Buffet.
“There’s class war alright and it’s my class, the rich, that are waging the war and winning it.”
Now class apologists will claim that WB was trying to foster class solidarity, but that fails to hold water under the scrutiny of his actions. Since, quite literally, the moment that he heard that one of his granddaughters had the temerity to give an interview to one of the Johnson & Johnson kids, he disowned her and hasn’t allowed her back in the last ≈ decade and a half, which seems to have had the desired effect since he has another dozen and a half children and grandchildren, and no one in that family has appeared on camera critical of the system since then.
Source: The 1% documentary by said J&J heir
Edit: Happy Holidays everyone. Remember that the good that you do for your local communities will spread farther than you’ll ever know.
Your reply isn’t really relevant to what they said. You can feel solidarity with Luigi and still think the murder was morally wrong and shouldn’t be celebrated.
Murder is wrong. Luigi didn’t murder anyone. Luigi committed an act of self/community defense against a mass murderer.
No, he didn’t. Deluding ourselves of that will just stop the problem from being truly fixed. Just look at how many people’s take away from this is “maybe now CEOs will be nicer and more empathetic?”. I shouldn’t have to explain the problem with that, but I will expand on it by saying that the CEO is really just a scape goat; the real guilty ones are the owners, who are also the people that appoint CEOs, and who the CEOs have to please. This hasn’t solved anything, and without a systemic change things will just go back to the way they were; if only because we exist in a very fast news cycle and the average person will most likely soon forget and just go back to their daily rut.
People want simple easy answers. This is true for everything, and it’s no less true now. It’s easy to sit at home and make memes and glorify someone else who - despite the fact I disagree with his methods - actually took action and did something, even if it meant risking comforts, privileges, or in this case even a death penalty; it makes people feel like they are doing something without having to take any real risks and without really changing anything, but it feels “effective” because it makes a lot of noise and creates a lot of headlines.
If you really want change, then more needs to be done. And sure, one way would be for more to follow Luigi’s footsteps, but - and I won’t even go into the pitfalls of that path - if you have enough people on your side for that to be successful and not be prosecuted/defend yourself from prosecution, then you could achieve similar societal change peacefully by community building and through mutual aid; side step existing capitalist and government institutions. But that takes actual effort; that takes actual willpower to affect real change; that requires people to be okay with losing some comforts and privileges - this is also true for Luigi’s path, but the appealing part of Luigi’s path is that it “only takes a few” (which as previously stated I disagree with) to affect that change, and those few get to be “someone else” and never the “I” in question. The “I” in question gets to remain at home, on their device of choice, talking about how good-looking, and cool, and heroic the “some else” who took the risk is, and make memes about it.
And that’s one reason I feel so bad for Luigi. While the CEO is the scapegoat of the true (or at least more powerful) capitalists, Luigi is the scape goat of “revolutionaries” who don’t really engage in any praxis.
That’s just like your opinion, man.
Fact of the matter is that he absolutely did commit an act of community defence. He even alludes to that fact in his “manifesto”
Did you bother to read anything I said? Saying you did something doesn’t make it true. Trump has also alluded that his foreign tariffs will bring prices down. Does that make it true?
No, one is the state abusing it’s power vs an individual who may or may not be guilty.
The other is an individual risking their life against hostis humani generis – ie, a brave hero.
The vigilante in order to retain support has a much much much higher burden of proof than the state. The state has many opportunities to kill a man, but the vigilante must only attack those who are both obviously evil and obviously out of reach of the law.
Luigi is popular because he met this burden of proof. If he had killed Jay-Z, or even P Diddy, it would not have been popular. After all, the law caught up with them. Before damage was done, no, our system isn’t designed to help people, but it did catch up. In contrast, matt gaetz is obviously evil, obviously outside of the law, and therefore an enemy of all mankind. Im not gonna do it, but I would applaud anyone willing to put their life on the line to take his.
Biden: Grants clemency indiscriminately for 1,500 people Public: Why did you let the Cash for Kids woman free Biden: Commutes death sentences selectively Public: Who made you judge, jury and executioner?
Biden: Grants clemency indiscriminately for 1,500 people indiscriminately Media: Why did you let the Cash for Kids woman free Biden: Commutes death sentences selectively Media: Who made you judge, jury and executioner?
FIFY… Real people honestly wouldn’t care about any of this if the media wasn’t trying to inspire outrage.
I think it’s the opposite. The public opinion has turned on him and so everything he does is critiqued. It’s nudge on by the media but is also the cycle of celebrities du jour
Neither Orwell nor Bradbury nor Vonnegut could have come up with anything so bizarre and upside down as to have a complete criminal and felon pretend that he cares about law and order.
We could have had colosseum executions where inmates fight to the death, hosted by Dana White and the UFC. But no, old man Biden has to ruin the fun.
