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.

  • Tgo_up@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    1 day ago

    I agree 100%, but I was never discussing what should be legal or illegal… Obviously any murder should be illegal. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

    That doesn’t change my opinion that sometimes murder is needed to affect change and sometimes it’s even the morally right thing to do…

    You honestly thought I was advocating for making murder legal?

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      1 day 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·
        5 hours 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·
          2 hours 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.