President Joe Biden announced Monday that he is taking 37 people off federal death row to serve out life sentences behind bars — a decision that leaves only three federal prisoners awaiting execution when President-elect Donald Trump takes office next month.
There’s a very bad joke o remember hearing a long time ago. It’s something along the lines of: “I’m in favor of killing babies, but I don’t like to give women a choice.” Most pro-life people actually are that, except they extended “baby” way before birth in a stupid way. They’re fine with killing actually post-birth babies though.
I actually have a friend who’s quite… strange. He’s pretty right wing, very into certain conspiracy theories, pro musk, etc, yet one of the nicest guys you’ll meet and certainly the guy you’d be calling to bail you out of jail in a pinch. Anyways, he actually opposes the death penalty exactly because he’s pro life. Said he couldn’t reconcile both of those stances.
That’s good! That means he’s at least a reasonable person. He can think for himself and can consider if ideas are idiologically consistent. I hope that eventually translates to him having empathy with people and then noticing how conservative politics fucks people over just for the sake of having an enemy though.
He didn’t commute the one Boston bomber, Dylan Roof, and the Tree of Life shooter. Which is good. I don’t agree with the death penalty but you can’t really pardon people like that.
It’s not a pardon. They would still be subject to the harshest punishment possible in civilized countries, and would never again be a threat to anyone.
I think you can, especially when the sentence is still life in prison. Remember that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, so they would not ever be paroled.
Well I have to admit I agree with the court there. A pardon should not be an admission of guilt. So even though that changes what I said, I have to concur with them. Thank you for letting me know.
It’s also surprising how the pro life and pro death penalty people are the same people usually.
It shouldn’t be. There is actually no contradiction or mutual exclusivity between the two; it only seems that way because of how the former viewpoint is labeled (it was definitely a PR move to call it “pro life” instead of “anti abortion”, which is a more accurate description of the stance).
Pro lifers believe the unborn are morally equivalent to the newly born, and therefore believe killing/destroying (depending on your perspective) the unborn is equivalent to murder (defined as ‘undeserved killing/execution’), since the unborn is innocent by definition. And because they, like everyone else, believe murder is immoral, they also believe abortion is immoral.
This does not conflict at all with being in favor of the death penalty for someone guilty of a major crime against humanity, because such a person is not innocent, unlike the unborn child.
In fact, on another axis, these two stances are actually in perfect alignment (except in cases of rape, etc. which I believe is why many pro lifers do in fact make exceptions for those cases, being okay with abortion then), in that they both come from the mindset of ‘you must take responsibility and be held accountable for your actions’.
Morally it’s the right thing to do in my eyes. It’s also surprising how the pro life and pro death penalty people are the same people usually.
It’s only surprising if you know nothing about the group beyond the inaccurate name they use to identify themselves
Pro life only lasts until you’re born. After that it’s pro death.
There’s a very bad joke o remember hearing a long time ago. It’s something along the lines of: “I’m in favor of killing babies, but I don’t like to give women a choice.” Most pro-life people actually are that, except they extended “baby” way before birth in a stupid way. They’re fine with killing actually post-birth babies though.
I actually have a friend who’s quite… strange. He’s pretty right wing, very into certain conspiracy theories, pro musk, etc, yet one of the nicest guys you’ll meet and certainly the guy you’d be calling to bail you out of jail in a pinch. Anyways, he actually opposes the death penalty exactly because he’s pro life. Said he couldn’t reconcile both of those stances.
That’s good! That means he’s at least a reasonable person. He can think for himself and can consider if ideas are idiologically consistent. I hope that eventually translates to him having empathy with people and then noticing how conservative politics fucks people over just for the sake of having an enemy though.
He didn’t commute the one Boston bomber, Dylan Roof, and the Tree of Life shooter. Which is good. I don’t agree with the death penalty but you can’t really pardon people like that.
It’s not a pardon. They would still be subject to the harshest punishment possible in civilized countries, and would never again be a threat to anyone.
And the confusion here is exactly why it would have been a PR nightmare. The average American is really stupid.
Most civilized countries have abolished the death penalty
Thank you for clarifying my point.
Well I more just mean HE couldn’t because probably that would be unpopular with the groups who were targeted by them.
I think you can, especially when the sentence is still life in prison. Remember that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, so they would not ever be paroled.
These weren’t pardons, but commuted sentences. I don’t know what the stipulations surrounding that are
This was true, but that no longer applies. (at least at the federal level; I have no clue how state courts have ruled on this.)
Well I have to admit I agree with the court there. A pardon should not be an admission of guilt. So even though that changes what I said, I have to concur with them. Thank you for letting me know.
It shouldn’t be. There is actually no contradiction or mutual exclusivity between the two; it only seems that way because of how the former viewpoint is labeled (it was definitely a PR move to call it “pro life” instead of “anti abortion”, which is a more accurate description of the stance).
Pro lifers believe the unborn are morally equivalent to the newly born, and therefore believe killing/destroying (depending on your perspective) the unborn is equivalent to murder (defined as ‘undeserved killing/execution’), since the unborn is innocent by definition. And because they, like everyone else, believe murder is immoral, they also believe abortion is immoral.
This does not conflict at all with being in favor of the death penalty for someone guilty of a major crime against humanity, because such a person is not innocent, unlike the unborn child.
In fact, on another axis, these two stances are actually in perfect alignment (except in cases of rape, etc. which I believe is why many pro lifers do in fact make exceptions for those cases, being okay with abortion then), in that they both come from the mindset of ‘you must take responsibility and be held accountable for your actions’.
Hope that clears things up a bit.