Trump Rages at Biden for Wrecking His Plans for Executions: ‘Makes No Sense’
www.thedailybeast.com
Human rights experts praised Biden’s decision to commute death-row sentences—which baffled death penalty hawk Trump.

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.

  • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Tgo_up@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      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…

      • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Tgo_up@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          9 hours ago

          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.

          • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
            1·
            5 hours ago

            Did you just gloss over “then you need to change the law”? Maybe even my entire comment?

            At no point did I ever say laws should guide our morals. I’m saying you don’t codify laws you don’t intend on following. Your slavery example is an irrelevant cheap shot that we both know does not reflect my position. Hell it’s not even relevant to yours. It’s an entirely different discussion on whether laws = morality when it should be our values informing our laws, none of which is the discussion af hand.

            You said murder should be illegal but that you still condone it in some cases as you believe it’s the only effective solution. This is the discussion at hand. If you have special carve outs where you’re allowed to ignore the law based on your personal whims then the law is meaningless. You must alter the law or your stance, your two stated views are contradictory.