this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
57 points (83.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2610 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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:

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/oregon-governor-death-sentence-clemency-christian-longo/283-6008ce2d-998a-4b9e-8dcf-4da42d1c3986

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Longo

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Right, so straight up murder = life in prison. Murder but you also fuck the corpse = straight to the gas chamber.

Weird.