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.
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.”
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.
Nothing more, nothing less.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Bernie endorsed him, that’s enough for this race.
Bernie endorsed Genocide Joe to stay as candidate at the peak of unpopularity. Bernie has wasted all his endorsement cred
Unrelevant! Don’t vote fascist.
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.
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 sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/366201/tim-walz-record-governor-progressive-agenda
