Transcript
Alabama suffocated a man to death in a gas chamber tonight after starving him so he wouldn’t choke on his own vomit as they did it. And this was deemed perfectly legal by multiple courts in the vaunted American legal system.
That’s what happens when you value institutions over people.
Link for more info: https://www.reuters.com/legal/alabama-prepares-carry-out-first-execution-by-nitrogen-asphyxiation-2024-01-25/
Literally avoided my questions. Why are you okay sending someone who is innocent to death?
Death cult.
You started with a quote that has nothing to do with the case I commented on. You also presented a straw man argument with a loaded question about cops shooting people which once again has nothing to do with the case and situation I originally commented on.
I assumed you either have poor reading comprehension or are just in it for the fake internet points and I responded appropriately and was going to leave it at that. But since you wanna do this, lets go:
“Are you ok with cops playing judge jury and executioner?” -No.
“Lots of innocent people die from cops deciding that it is okay if that guy is dead.” - Ahhh yes the meat of your argument. I can see you follow the typical Lemmy pattern of not doing any research what-so-ever on the subject you are posting on. If you take the time to read up about the subject you’ll find he was tried and convicted by a jury for stabbing of Elizabeth Sennett and has been on death row for some time. The “cops” did not play “judge, jury, and executioner”. The actual Judge, Jury and Executioner played those roles. This is an example of justice for the victim who at no point in your argument did you even think to mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Kenneth_Eugene_Smith
Hey buddy. Lets roll it back. I’ll fully agree that this person is an asshole. Okay? No one is disputing this.
However the point I really want to get to is when someone pointed out that many times innocent people are given the death sentence for crimes they didnt commit. Your response was and i fucking quote you “That’s a chance we are just going to have to take.” That means you thibk it is okay to kill innocent people just because some other people did horrid shit.
So again, why the fuck are you actually okay with killing innocent people? That is what i want to know. You keep dodging around it. Answer the question “Why do you think it is okay for the state to have the power to kill people who have commited no crimes?”
Ahhh the old “moving the bar because my argument is flawed trick”. Whatever, I’m still game.
Last time I checked the state does not have the power to “kill people who have committed no crimes.” There is no law on the books nor precedent set, that gives any U.S. State or Federal agency the power to execute the innocent. So to directly answer your question, no I don’t think the state should have the power to kill people who have not committed a crime.
Certain states do have the death penalty for citizens who are found guilty by a jury of their peers for very serious crimes. All states that have death penalties currently require that said jury of their peers vote for the death penalty. Only in those cases can the guilty party be sentenced for execution.
You can make the argument that our justice system is not perfect. (Which is what I think you are clumsily trying to express with your last two posts.) That a jury’s can convict a defendant who may be innocent. To that I reply, that’s a chance we’ll have to take.
I do know a man on death row. I worked with him for two years. I traveled with him, worked on projects, I even had an hand in promoting him up the ranks in our company. I was the person who counseled him and sent him home on the day he committed his crime. He was extremely upset, I heard him out and told him to take some time for himself, go home, calm down, and think it out.
Instead he left and murdered two people and destroyed three families. He’s been on death row for well over a decade. I think he belongs there and deserves his fate. I support the death penalty.
“Committed no crimes” is an objective statement about reality. The state has killed people who committed no crimes, and the state had a right to execute all of them. Both of those statements are true, so their combined form, “the state has a right to execute people who have committed no crimes,” is also true. Personally, I would prefer if we made that statement not true anymore.
Lol perhaps in your fucked MAGA fantasy world the state is empowered to kill people who are not guilty of crimes. Back in reality a jury of their peers has to agree without a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty and should be executed. Can justice be miscarried, yes. But no system is perfect.
A jury of your peers does not determine whether or not you actually committed a crime, they determine whether the evidence against you is sufficient to find you guilty. A jury of Claude Jones’ peers found him guilty based on evidence that was later shown to be faulty. That guilty verdict gave the state the right to execute him. He was innocent. They had the right to execute an innocent man. They could do the same to you.
As I’ve stated before those are chances I’m willing to take.