Why I no longer support the death penalty.

[Rigby5]

For you maybe, for someone used to it, not so much.

Some crimes deserve the ultimate punishment, not 3 hots and a cot.

Whether deserved or not, who has that authority to kill when not in immediate defense?

We are hypocrites.
For example, Eythel Rosenberg likely did not even know of the nuclear info being passed to the Soviets, and we now know the info was actually useless scratch pad notes no one could use.
Another example is our illegal murders in wars like Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Who gets to decide?
If you say "government", then you have authorized a dictatorship.

 

[Rigby5]

If anyone lied it was the Deep State feeding intelligence to bush

The same gang of liars and criminals that libs worship today

Bush had access to the truth, because all of Europe was telling us the CIA was lying.
And Bush embellished.
He said things like Saddam was 2 weeks away from nuclear weapons.
He said things the CIA even never dreamed of.
And the "Deep State" you are referring to was just Chalabi, a person on the run for bank fraud.

 

[Meathead]

Whether deserved or not, who has that authority to kill when not in immediate defense?

We are hypocrites.
For example, Eythel Rosenberg likely did not even know of the nuclear info being passed to the Soviets, and we now know the info was actually useless scratch pad notes no one could use.
Another example is our illegal murders in wars like Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Who gets to decide?
If you say "government", then you have authorized a dictatorship.

The state has the right to decide punishment, not self-righteous pricks.

 

[Rigby5]

Who lied? You are a confused libtard.

Lots of people lied.
Cheney, Bush, Chalabi, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.
They claimed there was proof of nuclear and chemical WMD stockpiles, and that was all lies.

Turns out Saddam only had the weapons we had given him, like mustard gas, to help his fight with the Iranians in 1988.

 

[Rigby5]

The state has the right to decide punishment, not self-righteous pricks.

Nope.
The "state" has no rights ever, and only can carry out our delegated authority when we expressly want them to.
But I agree that a few self-righteous do not get to dictate, and they can only claim a right to exercise their inherent authority when their rights are threatened.
They have no claim just from what they desire, out of a personal sense of justice.

 

[Meathead]

Nope.
The "state" has no rights ever, and only can carry out our delegated authority when we expressly want them to.
But I agree that a few self-righteous do not get to dictate, and they can only claim a right to exercise their inherent authority when their rights are threatened.
They have no claim just from what they desire, out of a personal sense of justice.

It doesn't matter who you frame your priggishness, you still don't get to call the shots. You might see the benefits if you get a toilet that flushes.

 

[Rigby5]

It isn't barbaric it's justice.

How is it justice?
If doing something once is bad, how is it justice to then do it again?
When you execute, then you are stating unequivocally that murder is ok.

The only difference between murder and executions is the ability to get away with it.

 

[Mac-7]

Bush had access to the truth, because all of Europe was telling us the CIA was lying.

All of europe did not say the CIA was lying

 

[rightwinger]

Executions are barbarism

That is why most countries and most states have given up on it

 

[Rigby5]

All of Europe did not say the CIA was lying

Sorry, I forgot. England agreed with us about wanting Iraq's oil.

 

[Mac-7]

Sorry, I forgot. England agreed with us about wanting Iraq's oil.

Most of the NATO countries participated in the Iraq invasion

 

[Rigby5]

Most of the NATO countries participated in the Iraq invasion

I disagree.
I remember Germany, France, Italy, etc. all warning us it was stupid to attack Iraq.
The only nations I remember being involved were very suspect, like England, Poland, and Turkey.

How could something so stupid have been popular?
There not only was zero evidence, but clearly Saddam was never involved in any terrorism and was a US ally?

 

[rightwinger]

Most of the NATO countries participated in the Iraq invasion

Desert Storm? yes
The 9-11 Invasion? Most passed

 

[martybegan]

Whether deserved or not, who has that authority to kill when not in immediate defense?

We are hypocrites.
For example, Eythel Rosenberg likely did not even know of the nuclear info being passed to the Soviets, and we now know the info was actually useless scratch pad notes no one could use.
Another example is our illegal murders in wars like Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

Who gets to decide?
If you say "government", then you have authorized a dictatorship.

The Government, via the US Constitutions and the State Constitutions.

The Death Penalty is a legal recourse of punishment via due process for certain crimes.

If the Executive could decree death penalties, you would have a dictatorship, but what you have is due process via the judicial system, laws indicating which crimes can be punished via death by the legislature, and a check on the system via the executive's ability to pardon or commute punishments.

 

[martybegan]

How is it justice?
If doing something once is bad, how is it justice to then do it again?
When you execute, then you are stating unequivocally that murder is ok.

The only difference between murder and executions is the ability to get away with it.

Because in the old days hunting down and killing the guy who killed your kin was the norm.

We just gave the power to an impartial legal system.

Legal executions are not murder, they are proscribed legal acts under the law.

 

[martybegan]

Life in prison is far wors

Maybe for you, but for the type of person who would commit a crime worthy of the death penalty it probably isn't.

 

[Rigby5]

The Government, via the US Constitutions and the State Constitutions.

The Death Penalty is a legal recourse of punishment via due process for certain crimes.

If the Executive could decree death penalties, you would have a dictatorship, but what you have is due process via the judicial system, laws indicating which crimes can be punished via death by the legislature, and a check on the system via the executive's ability to pardon or commute punishments.

The judicial system is not representative of the people, so then is not authorized by the people or an extension of their inherent authority.
The legislature is representative, but is in violation of the law because if we the people can not execute, we can not delegate that authority to the legislature, so then they can not legally dictate an arbitrary death penalty.
That which individuals can not do, can not then be delegated to the legislature to do for us.
When the legislature decides to make execution a punishment for a crime, they are doing so without any legal authority.
They are creating their own fake authority out of thin air.
Legally they are only have delegated that authority we as individuals have, and no more.

 

[Rigby5]

Because in the old days hunting down and killing the guy who killed your kin was the norm.

We just gave the power to an impartial legal system.

Legal executions are not murder, they are proscribed legal acts under the law.

I do not mind an independent legal system that can potentially reduce bias, but our current legal system is way beyond that, out of control, and clearly an autocratic police state.
For example, the War on Drugs, mandated sentence, asset forfeiture, no-knock-warrants, etc., are all completely and totally illegal.
While drugs may be very stupid, since they harm no one else, there is no legal means by which they could possibly be criminalized.

 

[martybegan]

The judicial system is not representative of the people, so then is not authorized by the people or an extension of their inherent authority.
The legislature is representative, but is in violation of the law because if we the people can not execute, we can not delegate that authority to the legislature, so then they can not legally dictate an arbitrary death penalty.
That which individuals can not do, can not then be delegated to the legislature to do for us.
When the legislature decides to make execution a punishment for a crime, they are doing so without any legal authority.
They are creating their own fake authority out of thin air.
Legally they are only have delegated that authority we as individuals have, and no more.

That goes against our constitutional principles.

The Constitution itself recognizes "life and limb" being in jeopardy via due process for criminal behavior. That's all the justification needed.

 

[martybegan]

I do not mind an independent legal system that can potentially reduce bias, but our current legal system is way beyond that, out of control, and clearly an autocratic police state.
For example, the War on Drugs, mandated sentence, asset forfeiture, no-knock-warrants, etc., are all completely and totally illegal.
While drugs may be very stupid, since they harm no one else, there is no legal means by which they could possibly be criminalized.

The War on Drugs is a failure, but that does not eliminate the fact the Constitution itself gives the government power to execute those found guilty of certain crimes as long as due process is followed.