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.
While I’m overall glad about this, leaving 3 unpardoned inmates really corrupts the “moral stance against federal executions” justification and makes it seem like he is in favor of capital punishment but only for people he thinks deserve it. It also makes it seem like he believes it’s his decision to decide who gets to live and that rubs me the wrong way.
deleted by creator
Yep I’m anti-death penalty, the 3 that didn’t get pardoned should probably just live the rest of their lives in prison. But I’m not going to shed any tears for them.
He didn’t pardon the others, he commuted their sentences to life in prison. Of note, the 3 civilians left are terrorists who committed mass murder and were caught red handed. There are also 4 people on military death row who remain. One is also a mass murdering terrorist; one committed literal treason, attacking his own unit in the middle of the night overseas; one is a serial killer/rapist; and one took three trials over 4 decades to convict of a group murder.
They should probably commute his sentence too…
Yeah sorry that’s what I meant, long day at work. no sympathy for the people on death row, either way they should not be allowed back into normal society.
I understand that and, if you ask me, those 3 guys are pos. My problem is that he said he did it to take a moral stance against death penalty. You can’t do that and go “except for these 3 cases”.
deleted by creator
But not everybody is making a statement about morality. He’s purportedly saying “capital punishment is bad and we should get rid of it”. If you make exceptions, all you’re saying is that you’re in favor of keeping it around for really bad people, which is exactly where they are now.
deleted by creator
Zoroastrianism.
deleted by creator
Any Crusader Kings player knows about the sister marriage
I’m not sure that’s true. Some people legitimately stop at life in prison and always oppose the death penalty.
I’m one of those. Capital punishment is obsolete in my opinion, since we no longer need to execute people to ensure that they don’t present danger to the civilized population in the future.
deleted by creator
Again, I don’t know if that’s true. People seem to have very strange absolute moral ideas sometimes.
deleted by creator
You’re completely missing the point and focusing on an individual. They’re stating the moral purpose of a SOCIETY. As in the society shouldn’t kill and it certainly shouldn’t be ONE individuals decision for that murder to take place. YOU might have a redline/breaking point, but society wouldn’t. It’s why ONE person isn’t the deciding factor on death, it’s a societies moral choice to do that and uphold that.
You guys can pretend that EVERYONE has a breaking point, that doesn’t mean you can’t have a society that doesn’t have the death penalty. I feel like these responses are just people trying to incite continued violence or justifying their own extremely vitriol need to kill those they deem less.
Nope. The most die hard, anti death penalty believer has no limits and literally says “we do not have the right to take anyone’s life, even if they are Hitler. In fact it would be better for society if we got to try to rehabilitate Hitler”.
And I agree with them.
People can downvote you but aren’t even thinking it out. Hitler right now is still a projected person for the far-right nazi movement and is brought up constantly. What if he had been imprisoned and actually got mental health care that doesn’t really exist in most prison populations currently (globally that is). If you had a senior Hitler, with life imprisonment, painting fields of flowers with jewish and little blonde/blond kids running around, it would be a totally different outcome in this day and age.
To be possible though the prison system would need completely reworked. In our current system I don’t think it would have the same outcome (since our system has a different purpose than rehabilitate currently). I also think people shouldn’t be able to communicate as effectively with the outside world without extra censorship (that whole no harm to society thing, can still happen if they’re voicing action or calls to violence, happens still currently.).
I have no such limits. Death, as a penalty, is always unjust because humans do not have free will. Every action, every thought, has some biological, or neurochemical, or material basis for it’s happening. Inflicting any form of punishment or suffering on the qualia, the conscious experience of someone, for the illusion of choice we believe to have, is actually just inflicting suffering on innocent beings, because we have no choice.
Now, that’s not too say I’m anti-violence. But I firmly believe that every piece of violence should be evaluated as if it was being done against an innocent person. Things like “guilt” or “they deserve it” should not be taken into the calculation when doing violence at all, only the benefits it has to the rest of society. If you are in the position to levy death as a punishment, I would rather just see them locked up for life.
deleted by creator
Yes! Humans are indeed, not culpable for their actions because we have no free will.
Now, I won’t go into the nuances of laws here, but I do find punishing people for the sake of punishment, or out of some sense of “they deserve it” to be problematic because all humans are innocent.
I’d love a source for this. Personally, I don’t think we should be in the business of killing defenseless people in any context.
Why do you need a source for a fundamental part of human nature? subjectivity
Google/Bing/DDG/Kagi the word…
Because people like to make claims about human nature that simply aren’t generally true. Rather than recognizing the way complex circumstances can shape human feelings and behaviors, I frequently see people break it down into simple platitudes like “humans are lazy, greedy, etc”, rather than recognizing complex realities like the way power erodes empathy.
Isn’t that my precise point but more words?
Humans are complex. Different people will have different values and we’ll have different lines. This is fundamental to the individualistic nature of people.
Asking for a source on something ingrained in our everyday lives is almost a bad faith statement. That’s like asking for a source on every piece of casual conversation just to shut it down.
Do you really need a source that tells you that different people have different values and weigh the problems around them differently?
I think you’re taking some vague statements and trying to proclaim a universal scientific truth out of it.
“Even the most die-hard anti-death-penalty believer has their limits.”
I’d love a source for this.
fundamental part of human nature. Subjective: (Based on a given person’s experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual.
(you mean, like the complete opposite of your statements can also be true?!)
This is fundamental to the individualistic nature of people. Asking for a source on something ingrained in our everyday lives is almost a bad faith statement
So we have fundamental, ingrained states that you’ve declared to be unsourceable (scientifically) and is such a part of us that even bringing it up sounds like bad faith. Real “trust me bro, this is how it is” vibes with no clarity or justification.
deleted by creator
That means the opposite of what you’re arguing for though
How does it? Subjectivity is defined by the same things that cause a variance in values and differences in weights placed on problems of others.
Which is exactly what I’m talking about. Humans are complex we all have differing values.
Right, so some might have an absolute no-killing value.
Removed by mod
Then I’d be a witness and therefore not qualified to pass judgement in their case. Conflict of interest.
Removed by mod
You’re getting awfully worked up about the hypothetical baby you’re using to justify murder.
Removed by mod
The only thing that I can come to the conclusion is that two of the three are neo-nazis.
He could be sending a message, and that’s what Trump is actually pissed about.
The Boston bomber I can’t justify with that same line of thinking though.
Executions are barbaric, plus life in prison is far more cruel anyway.
That actually makes sense.
A world leader like the president is deciding on deaths every single day. You are right to think it’s unsavory, but it certainly isn’t unique to this pardoning.
That may be true but singling out 3 people who are currently harmless and saying “you get to die” feels somehow different.
He probably did that the day before and the day after.
Devil’s advocate: do the last 3 deserve it? Are they unsafe to other inmates and also not possible candidates for rehabilitation and release to society?
If yes… Welp.
That’s the point of taking a “moral stance against federal executions”, though — nobody deserves it.
Yeah… Most people don’t. Some do.
well, regardless whether he or anyone believes it or not, it quite literally was his decision to make