Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CE3K t1_j06iz25 wrote

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

>The death penalty carries the inherent risk of executing an innocent person. Since 1973, at least 190 people who had been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated.

That's one too many for me.

207

Tomlinsoi t1_j06rfe5 wrote

Are you saying 189 wrongful ones would be okay?

/s

91

CE3K t1_j06s1zo wrote

LOL I was trying to think about how to properly write that. Should I have said that it's "190 too many" for me?

73

BadPlayers t1_j07z624 wrote

Or it could've been "one is too many for me."

18

CE3K t1_j09jgsz wrote

Thaaaank you for this. Ugh why is english so hard? T_T

5

i81u812 t1_j08bn63 wrote

You are literally correct and being confused by. People. The saying doesn't mean actual one.

In this case, many is actually a flag similar to the, their... ah fuck it nevermind.

ffs.

1

DanishWhoreHens t1_j09jek6 wrote

I agree but that said, I sat through a five hour commutation hearing with the Oregon parole board today listening to my family member try and stumble his way through attempting to sound repentant for blowing the the head off a six month old baby and killing her mom. Hearing the victim’s family speak is the most painful experience of my life and I cannot imagine their pain. They shouldn’t have to keep rehashing this crime every two years. None of us should. It’s agony.

5

CE3K t1_j09lhbv wrote

I totally agree and my heart goes out to you and your family dealing with what sounds like a super personal tragedy. If something unfair effects me, personally, I immediately wish for some form of relief and retribution -- that's human nature. As a society we have to hold one another accountable for what's best for the community as a whole, though. There's a reason we don't let the victims sentence the offenders. So objectively speaking, when we consider all the times we've sentenced completely innocent people to death, and how often it's been abused, we have to stop and reconsider how we deal with the worst members of society.

Imagine that, a completely innocent person, with family, friends, and a future of their own, wrongly convicted and KILLED for something they didn't do. All so we can feel better and reap retribution. Can you not think of a greater injustice? Besides that, even in the most certain cases of guilt, should our objective still be revenge? As a society, do we truly wish to define ourselves with vengeance when we could defy evil with goodness instead? It's difficult to answer as an individual, but as a society I believe we are more moral for turning the other cheek and offering love and forgiveness in the face of suffering.

4

DanishWhoreHens t1_j09ojtc wrote

I have imagined it, and voted to abolish the death penalty. I don’t want any person to lose a loved one, not a victim and not the families on either side who did nothing to deserve such a loss. But, a system that allows an anti-social narcissistic defendant with two natural life sentences who admits they are guilty to repeatedly revictimize everyone else involved is no solution either.

2

CE3K t1_j09ot7h wrote

I'm sure there's an argument for why certain things like that exist but I'm not qualified to answer. :< But I am sorry you all have to go through such shit.

3

marthirial2 t1_j06m3lm wrote

42,000 people died in car crashes in 2021. One too many, let's ban cars.

−96

CE3K t1_j06nb45 wrote

That logic doesn't work. You're equating accidental deaths to the murder of innocent people and excusing murder, which is ridiculous. You might as well say, "Well, people die of old age so why not murder?" Do you not see the flawed comparison?

43

mauore11 t1_j095zs9 wrote

"How dare you use logic against my point"

0

CE3K t1_j09jbt1 wrote

tbf I don't think my example was the best. I wonder what a better analogy might be? It's such a weird concept, comparing car deaths to the death penalty. Some other users put it more eloquently already I guess.

1

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j079o2h wrote

If murder is the intention unlawful killing of another, then executing the innocent after they're given due process and erroneously found guilty isn't murder. Unless your suggesting that these people were found guilty on purpose because someone wanted them exacuted.

−8

onioning t1_j07dm7x wrote

You're not wrong, but this is pretty pedantic. The person to replied to just used the wrong word.

7

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j07ei70 wrote

I disagree that this distinction is just pedantry. Using the wrong word so that anyone who disagrees with your position looks like a monster is a rhetorical trick people use all the time. And it's really good at keeping people from actually talking with each other about their opinions and views.

Edit: not saying that this was the above poster's goal with using that word but the correction is not mere pedantry.

−1

onioning t1_j07f9je wrote

It can be, but in this case replace "murder" with "unjust killing" and that doesn't change anything. The emotional heft comes from what's being described, not how it is being described.

4

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j07fzr0 wrote

They use murder three times the first two are synonymous with 'unjust killing' the last one stops making sense if you sub in 'unjust killing' which is a really really good illustration of my point.

−4

onioning t1_j07jvxy wrote

"Unjust killing" works fine in all cases.

3

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j07l3n4 wrote

Lets say it does. Then I can say that unjust killing in this case = a certain kind of accident. So the above poster is just flat out wrong but in a way that is masked by using the word murder.

0

Bear71 t1_j07tcbz wrote

When the cops DA judge cheat to wrongfully convict then yes it is murder!

2

AliasElais t1_j0a4ux3 wrote

>Unless your suggesting that these people were found guilty on purpose because someone wanted them exacuted.

u/onioning does a good job explaining the rest but I just wanted to point out this part and affirm that this has indeed happened. Not the point but if you don't think the death penalty has been used against innocent people on purpose then you really should research more history on the subject.

2

Far_Vegetable7105 t1_j0b4a1t wrote

I'm well aware. But I think that particular miscarriage of justice is a wholly different problem that needs to be solved regardless of what any kind of punishment looks like. It doesn't suddenly become ok just because it was some other punishment. We can't just abolished the death penalty and call it good enough if that is the problem.

1

marthirial2 t1_j06o4w7 wrote

Incorrect and poor reading comprehension. I am equating death by car to death by lethal injection of innocent people. Both victims didn't deserve to died. The lazy argument of just ban death penalty because they may execute an innocent person is my issue.

With cars, they made them safer and smarter. We have to find a better system to dispose of the worst. That is the argument we should have.

−68

CE3K t1_j06rji6 wrote

Right, so just a little heads up but saying someone has poor reading comprehension is an ad hominem and doesn't add anything to your point. Otherwise we might as well just take that final step straight to name calling and well .. while I'm always down for fucking around I don't think this subject is all that complicated so I'll give it the ole college try first.

Since you seem to think that not killing innocent people isn't a valid argument to ban the death penalty we already have an incredibly huge difference in values and morals, so I'll add more reasons. There's a lot but here's a few as to why the death penality is hot garbage.

  • It's ineffective / doesn't work as a deterrent
  • It's inhumane / retribution isn't justice
  • It's exploitative / history of racial and economic biases
  • It's costly / literally costs more than a life sentence

However, I will double back to the number one reason it's bad, which is a simple argument based on morality. And that is that it's irreversible. In other words, killing innocent people is bad mkay? Ask yourself this, assuming the parties involved are of no danger to anyone anymore, if you could kill someone evil but you had to kill an innocent person to do it, would you? It's really simple logic. Vengeance is no excuse to kill innocent people. I don't see how that's debatable but since we disagree on that then there's really nowhere to go further on that note.

31

somepeoplewait t1_j06q8y2 wrote

The death penalty doesn’t deter crime and does cost more than simply keeping someone in prison for life. What purpose does it serve?

22

novium258 t1_j06qjem wrote

"better for 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent suffer" is how Benjamin Franklin put it, feeling the usual ratio of 10:1 didn't seem strong enough to drive home his point.

15

VanillaCookieMonster t1_j06v51n wrote

It is more likely that their reading comprehension is just fine - and your writing skills are flawed.

8

AtsignAmpersat t1_j06w7bf wrote

You have some really false equivalency going on in your logic. Car accidents are not the same as incorrectly sentencing someone to death.

7

DjDrowsy t1_j06zf7w wrote

Cars are useful for numerous reasons and car accidents are a natural result of cars being used. The death penalty is a completely revocable and preventable government policy that ends innocent peoples lives for no positive gain.

There an alternatives to the death penalty that dont end innocent peoples lives (or any lives!) and don't give governments the power to murder its citizens.

I personally dont trust the government to 1. Be competent enough to catch the correct person. 2. To end a person's life.

I'm uncomfortable with your "dispose of the worst" phrasing but I don't disagree that we should reform our prison system. It's just very clear that the death penalty is not the solution.

4

euph_22 t1_j0772ol wrote

>With cars, they made them safer and smarter. We have to find a better system to dispose of the worst. That is the argument we should have.

We have that, it's called "don't execute them". Which incidentally is cheaper and has all the deterrent value.

3

Phobia_Ahri t1_j06zd7c wrote

But cars are dogshit and ruin our cities and ecosystems. So yes actually, let's ban cars plz

−1

Darknessie t1_j066etf wrote

Death penalty discussion.

Time to grab some popcorn and watch the thread.

53

xtilexx t1_j06ru94 wrote

I'll be back in a couple hours to sort by controversial

18

Matthew_C1314 t1_j07igwu wrote

Just flip on fox news. It should be raging about this in about an hour. I think the argument will be "The governor does not have the authority to throw out jury decisions".

3

Jumpy-Win5810 t1_j09gnq9 wrote

is the Jury doing the sentencing or is that a judge?

1

Matthew_C1314 t1_j0a66c5 wrote

Depending on the state, the jury’s may need to unanimously agree for a death sentence.

1

imsotiredlmaooo t1_j06kt9l wrote

I want the Black Mirror punishment where they’re put into a theme park with no memory and are forced to figure out what they did over and over again for my amusement. Some of you may not have seen Black Mirror. Trust me, you should.

53

FivePing t1_j06suyi wrote

Multiple times. I tell my friends, skip the first episode and give them a link to that one site with the chronological order of weirdness. It’s amazing in that the themes portrayed in Black Mirror can actually happen to us, or have already but we’re just oblivious to it.

21

AtsignAmpersat t1_j06xam5 wrote

I made the mistake of recommending the show to someone and not warning them to skip the first episode. I feel like it’s not that bad but it’s a rough opener for people that are a little off put by disturbing content. This guy is a little straight edge and he was just like nope I’m done with that show. I was like no they’re not all like that. I don’t know if he ever tried again. I actually check in with him on that. It’s been a few years and he might be open to trying another episode.

3

jaherafi t1_j06yqmo wrote

If you have erased their memories, isn't that just like torturing an innocent person for no reason over and over again?

15

imsotiredlmaooo t1_j07fr9w wrote

It’s definitely torture, but not of an innocent person. If I forget that I’ve done horrible things, I’m still guilty of them

6

Matthew_C1314 t1_j07ipn4 wrote

Quite a philosophical question. Some could argue that those memories are what made you. If your memory is completely wiped, then maybe you are a whole new person.

7

CoatAlternative1771 t1_j06wx32 wrote

But that assumes the people are good.

I have a feeling, putting a guy who raped and murdered a 3 year old child, the ability to do the same thing over and over again would just let him live his daily fantasies.

−8

3OAM t1_j06rflt wrote

The bloodlust of Christian Republicans is wild.

35

PatrenzoK t1_j072nkz wrote

Lol top comment is someone supporting the death penalty but ends it by saying “I’m pretty liberal”. Some people really just are desensitized to what death really is.

16

great_gastly t1_j07efqo wrote

Top comment changed, and I'm always skeptical of people who say they are pretty liberal and then say something somewhat in opposition to that view. There's so much false information presented on the internet - It's crazy

8

star0forion t1_j07luv6 wrote

Why? I’m definitely a leftist in regards to social and economical issues. But I also support capital punishment in limited cases.

8

great_gastly t1_j08bwh4 wrote

Why am I skeptical and think people lie on the internet? lol

3

Saladcitypig t1_j06vv4l wrote

with a lot of people actually. Pretty bone chilling how gleeful people are at the concept of revenge warranted or not.

Like with Brittney Griner, people on reddit are literally angry she got home and isn't spending a century of her life doing hard labor (pretending. it about the arms dealer) ... and in the same breath wish we bomb Moscow... like... what??

People love to armchair murder, it's insane.

2

Pechumes t1_j06ygkg wrote

No one’s angry she’s back in the US. They are angry we released “the merchant of death”, one of the most notorious and dangerous arms dealers in the world. This dude plotted to sell missiles to the Taliban to shoot down U.S. passenger jets….

16

Mounta1nK1ng t1_j09fevc wrote

And he would have been released in 12 years anyway, and we would not have gotten anything for his release. This way we got an American citizen back.

He only had a 25 year sentence and was about halfway through it.

3

jazzysquid t1_j09jo7z wrote

He was going to be released in 2029, so not even 12 years

3

Pechumes t1_j09i6i4 wrote

That’s 12 years where he couldn’t be helping his buddy Putin secure arms for his army.

0

sherrib99 t1_j078bmb wrote

Exactly. All to get someone convicted on a weed charge out of prison. Meanwhile there are thousands of people all over the US doing time for weed. So I guess it’s ok to be in prison in the US for pot, but an absolute crime against humanity to be in prison in Russia for pot.

2

lessquiet t1_j07bo29 wrote

"someone convicted on a weed charge"

bruh, she's an Olympic Gold Medalist who represented the United States. She's not a random nobody. at least a Democrat President gives enough shits to do something. more than we can say for the previous one.

i think a lot of people are just mad as hell he fought to free a black woman and they're too chicken shit to say it out loud so they get they're clutching their pearls about a burnt arms dealer.

−2

Pechumes t1_j07j70x wrote

Bruh, we released a dude who was actively trying to kill US civilians. We released him for someone who knowingly broke the law and brought weed into a foreign country. There are thousands of people locked up in the US for lesser charges than Griner. Her sexual orientation or race has absolutely no effect. I’d be saying the same thing if it was a straight white male (or any other combo of race and sexual preference).

“In 2011 Bout was convicted by a jury at a federal court in Manhattan, of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and officials, delivery of anti-aircraft missiles, and providing aid to a terrorist organization”

That’s it. That’s why people are upset. We released a dude who was trying to kill US civilians for a basketball player who was stupid enough to travel with weed in a foreign country run by a psychopath.

4

TenzenEnna t1_j084xfi wrote

He was going to get released regardless, he didn't have a life sentence or anything, we really just let him out 7 years early for the trade.

It's also worth noting that he worked WITH the CIA and none of them went away for working with him while "he was planning to kill U.S. Citizens and working with terrorists."

1

Pechumes t1_j0867zd wrote

Again- we released an incredibly dangerous international arms dealer for a dumbass who brought weed into Russia.

As for working WITH the CIA, you realize it was a sting operation right? No duh they’re going to “work with him” until they have enough evidence to convict him, which is what happened

0

TenzenEnna t1_j087cpu wrote

It was well documented that he was working FOR the CIA along with working with the Russians. He played the double game until we got tired of him.

Also how is he incredibly dangerous. He's a known person who was taken out of the game before Bitcoin was even invented. His knowledge of where shit was left after the collapse of the soviet union is unquestionably worthless.

I know it's important for the narrative that he matters, but there's a reason we were going to let him out of jail in the first place, because now he's just some random old man.

3

Pechumes t1_j08ag7f wrote

How is he incredibly dangerous?! He was one of the most prolific arms dealers in the world. He still has all of his knowledge, his contacts, and probably expanded his criminal network while in prison. But don’t take my word for it, listen to a veteran national security corespondent for Newsweek and Time.

“Braun disagrees with those who argue that Bout is a has-been, that his network has frayed and his business model collapsed. If anything, Braun says, Bout has probably made valuable contacts over the nearly dozen years he has spent in the U.S. prison system.

“Anyone who thinks he’s washed up and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is not going to push him back into service, it’s beyond me,” Braun said. “People who believe that don’t understand how the real underworld works.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/12/viktor-bout-merchant-of-death-00073422

2

lessquiet t1_j0a3uhq wrote

> Her sexual orientation or race has absolutely no effect...

lol. I don't believe you.

1

Pechumes t1_j0adil3 wrote

I mean, it’s an objectively horrible trade. One of the most notorious arms dealers in the world vs a WNBA player. Giving up him for her and Paul whelan wouldn’t have been worth it either. He’s been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Now, he’s just joined the far right party in Russia, and could potentially run for parliament. He’s now free to help supply Putins army. This has nothing to do with Griner. Am I glad we have an American back home? Absolutely. Do I think she deserved to be locked up? Of course not. Was it worth it to trade her for the Merchant of death? Absolutely not.

1

sherrib99 t1_j07c9ea wrote

Yes of course, that’s the only possible explanation for disagreeing with the exchange

1

lessquiet t1_j07gu2d wrote

i mean, you're here parroting a GOP talking point instead of celebrating the POTUS bringing home a pair of Americans, so where's the lie?

−1

sherrib99 t1_j07hmao wrote

Am I? I’m truly sorry for having varying opinions…. I am clearly a complete idiot incapable of having an independent thought….ugh how dare I. And I didn’t say anything about the previous guy that was released ( can’t remember the name) not sure why your lumping that in here…. Just looking to argue?

0

lessquiet t1_j0a419m wrote

your the one leaving off some pretty important context about why the US might make a trade for what was it?

"for someone convicted of a weed charge"

1

[deleted] t1_j0689zy wrote

[deleted]

21

enraged768 t1_j06bwxk wrote

I honestly didn't expect to see so many child, teen, and baby killers in that list ffs.

35

fatherbowie t1_j06wshi wrote

Sometimes, people get wrongfully convicted for killing children.

5

enraged768 t1_j06xjh5 wrote

Sometimes maybe, sometimes though there's some pretty damning evidence.

3

fatherbowie t1_j06xs09 wrote

Sometimes people are guilty, and sometimes other people are just convinced they’re guilty when they’re actually innocent. Too often it’s impossible to tell the difference.

14

enraged768 t1_j06xyj8 wrote

Sometimes people shoot up entire schools and get arrested with video captured of the event and hundreds of eye witness accounts. You know shit like that probably deserves the death penalty.

3

fatherbowie t1_j06z365 wrote

Wow, states should just hire you to tell them who really deserves the death penalty.

4

enraged768 t1_j06zbpa wrote

You're likely more kind than I am. So I'd whole heartedly recommend you or most people over myself to decide. But thankfully we have judges for that.

3

seaworthy-sieve t1_j07g6zz wrote

Kindness is a choice. You can choose to be kind, don't act like it's beyond you.

−2

enraged768 t1_j07h5fu wrote

Of course it is. I never said it wasn't. I didn't say I wasn't kind I said he was likely more kind than I am. And you can base that off our comment thread. I'm for capital punishment when someone's caught red handed killing children. He isn't for it. So based of that he likely has a kinder soul than I. But if someone killed my kids I'd want them dead.

5

seaworthy-sieve t1_j07i81g wrote

There is no world in which everyone agrees when exactly state sanctioned murder is acceptable. You say, when they're caught red handed killing children. Someone else says, DNA evidence of child sexual abuse. Someone else says, convicted of a subjectively particularly brutal crime.

Do you see how the line will never be sharp if it is permitted at all for the state to murder citizens?

I think convicted people serving a life sentence should have the option of consensual medical assistance in dying. But to force that is always inhumane. Also, in reality executions are not smooth deaths. Being shot in the head would be more dignified than the experimental, often drawn-out and downright torturous murders done to those people through lethal injections.

How many innocent people are you willing to watch be tortured to death in order to be able to have someone else enact your vengeance for you? 10? 100? How many?

1

enraged768 t1_j07lxq7 wrote

If they're innocent, and they didn't kill anyone i say zero. If they were caught red handed killing my children or your children which idk if you have any and convicted I'd be willing to do it myself. I wouldnt need someone to do it for me. I'll watch in the same room. Also I agree a bullet is better than injection. Fuck em. Do you have children of your own?

1

seaworthy-sieve t1_j07mk42 wrote

The point is that innocent people do die when murder is state sanctioned. Yes, some guilty people die, but innocent people are inevitably murdered as well.

What if your child grows up and is one day wrongfully convicted and given the death penalty? Would you be okay with that, as long as it means the real child killers are also being murdered?

1

Cheap_Cheap77 t1_j06zrfn wrote

The problem is there is no distinction in the law between red handed guilty and kinda maybe guilty.

2

enraged768 t1_j0702eg wrote

That doesn't mean there can't be. I know the laws in my state are revised every year. I don't know if that's the same in every state though.

2

Pandalite t1_j06z8qi wrote

It's also pragmatic, it's actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to put them to death. Cost of appeals and public defenders etc. And there's a saying- better for 99 evil people to go free than one innocent be harmed.

9

Bekiala t1_j07b4d3 wrote

This is how I think too. It is just too expensive to put them to death as well as giving government too much power.

Often the death penalty seems to be pushed because of human anger at the horrific crimes of these people. I understand that but I don't think it is the best basis for establishing policy.

4

BurningOasis t1_j09lb78 wrote

>as giving government too much power.

Ding ding ding

State sanctioned murder is not ok! Maybe another few thousands years of human history and we'll figure that one out.

1

Bekiala t1_j09q3n9 wrote

>Ding ding ding

Thanks. I was needing a bit of positive reinforcement today.

2

Cheap_Cheap77 t1_j06zk15 wrote

There is a big difference between what someone deserves and what you should give the state the power to do

9

lessquiet t1_j07a1cw wrote

Nah. Let them rot in a tiny cell. Murder isn't justice.

6

PatrenzoK t1_j072g65 wrote

“I’m not saying killing people is just but we should kill these people” lol great opinion

4

Dinklemeier t1_j073h8u wrote

In not sure the parents of that 3yo that was beaten to death by one of the guys on the list would agree with this commutation.

15

Ratwar100 t1_j08fpwo wrote

Yeah - Like if you beat a three year old to death because they're annoying you as you attempt to do Meth, I frankly don't give a shit if you live or die. Like I'm 100% understanding when it comes to all the arguments against the death penalty (wrongfully convicted, expense from all the appeals, morally questionable), but at the same time, I just don't care (at least for the correctly convicted ones).

4

pample_meese t1_j096szq wrote

The point is not whether or not that guy deserves to die, it’s whether or not we have the right guy, or if it was actually the guy who looks just like him and also smokes meth, but never hurt a child, and we all know, our justice system makes some unfortunate mistakes.

2

klasspirate t1_j08ho4f wrote

You don't think they are 'uplifted' at this news?

1

Dinklemeier t1_j08ke63 wrote

Going to go out on a limb and say the parents of every kid raped and murdered on the victim list fall into the "less than uplifted" category

7

Cole-train99 t1_j079oeh wrote

Agreed, some people don’t deserve the time they get to live after atrocious crimes.

I’m a neutral voter, I absolutely hate politics and talking about them. But people like Cruz, Ramos, and the others do not deserve to live comfortably in a cell for the rest of their lives.

Maybe I sound very bad saying that but I’ll never like the fact that these people get to live while little kids, parents, officers and more die because of their actions.

And before people say gun control, sure maybe harder gun control will help, but people will always find a way to get a gun. Illegal guns are every where now.

Releasing people like Victor Bout assures that.

Edit: before I get downvoted to hell, I’m not saying everyone deserves the death penalty. But people like Cruz and Ramos, who are without a single doubt 110% guilty do not deserve to be comfortable. I know people are wrongly convicted and sentenced but these guys, and many more have enough evidence.

−1

KnownUniverse t1_j09f73e wrote

I feel like you want vengeance instead of justice. There's a difference. It's cheaper to let these monsters live in a cage until death. They won't be able to cause further harm, just as if they were already dead.

2

GoPointers t1_j09oc0p wrote

Is it vengeance? I feel that if somebody decides they have the right to take another life, then by that flawed belief system they're acknowledging that someone has the right to take their life. So in the really bad cases, where the convicted murderer was convicted with 100% certainty, I'm not against it. However I don't like how there is no consistency to how it's applied, for example Texas. Looking from a broader perspective the US is one of the few remaining western countries that still hasn't banned the death penalty, so it probably should just be banned federally, though the conservatives won't let that happen.

3

tnnrk t1_j0725k2 wrote

Isn’t it also much cheaper to just house prisoners for life? No idea if that is actually cheaper or if it’s offset by their potential labor

9

infamous-spaceman t1_j07ldwa wrote

It's cheaper, death row inmates go through lengthy appeals processes that are very expensive. You could cut down on those to make it cheaper, but you'd end up killing more innocent people.

9

fatherbowie t1_j06x4h0 wrote

Good. Too many innocent people put to death. The state has no business killing people. I’m proud to live in a state that doesn’t have the death penalty.

6

GUCCIBUKKAKE t1_j06ong9 wrote

Tbh I’d probably rather die then be jailed for life. I wonder if some of these monsters think the same?

3

Redawg660 t1_j09hbfs wrote

As an Oregonian I can tell you this is political theater. The decision was made long ago that the death sentence will not be used in Oregon.

3

GoPointers t1_j09s3vb wrote

Yeah Kitzhaber put a hold on it. My guess is that it will be banned here soon. Brown just wanted to do something to take the spotlight off how poor a governor she has been.

1

7evenSlots t1_j0744sm wrote

I’m ok with no death penalty but it strikes me really wrong that one person can override something put in place by a fully democratic process by popular vote both in 1978 and 1984. Especially when done by a party that’s all the time claiming the other party is one that is trying to circumvent the democratic process. Pure hypocrisy.

2

lessquiet t1_j07arh0 wrote

Do you think a Governor isn't elected? The executive branch has always had the power to do this.

7

7evenSlots t1_j088107 wrote

Of course a single person is elected as Governor and I know they have the ability to do this however it’s on a case by case basis. Not a blanket statement across the board. She commuted someone that killed a 3 year old, another that killed his wife and 2 kids, another that killed a Mom and her 2 sons, and two others that bombed a bank and killed 2.

1

lessquiet t1_j0a2wj6 wrote

And now they will rot in a cell. They're not be set free.

1

7evenSlots t1_j0adfzj wrote

Back to my original argument though I started that I’m ok with life in prison, I just don’t agree that one person basically circumvented the rule of law because she didn’t like it. It’s a slippery slope and sets a horrible precedent and I don’t think it’s ok whether or not you agree with the change. Would you be ok if say, Youngkin in Virginia wiped away abortions with the stroke of his pen cause he doesn’t like them? Be honest now.

1

lessquiet t1_j0af83h wrote

I would not. These things are not equivalent though. The executive branch has always had this specific capability. It's in our constitution.

0

GoPointers t1_j09p7vh wrote

I do want to add that Kate Brown was not elected to her first term. She was secretary of state and when gov. Kitzhaber betrayed his constituents she became governor after his resignation. She won reelection but it's in a very liberal state, and her approval rating is abysmal, even in her own party. It's very likely she would've never been governor without Kitzhaber being an idiot.

I just want to point out that she hasn't been very good at her job and wasn't initially elected to that position.

1

AutoModerator t1_j05c53y wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

KatKat333 t1_j06e8p7 wrote

Let’s see the rest of the country follow suit.

1

Saladcitypig t1_j06waeg wrote

We don't even use the proper drugs anymore. No one will sell our death merchants propofol for killing...

It's insane we still execute anyone, let alone people with random drug cocktails that we literally tested on sheep that bald eagles ate and died from... like WHAT?

3

[deleted] t1_j07es9n wrote

As I said previously, I’ll take death penalty. Whatever world the Reddit and Internet has is too stressful. I have been sedated before and lost a day in my life. Please do not pardon me.

1

mattgcreek t1_j0856m0 wrote

I’m not a fan of the death penalty by the state, but I like the idea of a mother being able to slowly torture and kill a guy who raped and murdered her child. My mom always said she’d cut out someone’s heart with a wooden spoon if they hurt her babies. Why a wooden spoon? Because it would hurt more

1

KellTanis t1_j097k6b wrote

I’ve never been a fan of people having unilateral authority to make decisions like this, regardless of how I may feel about the death penalty. Too easy to be abused. Just look at all the presidential pardons that’ve ever been given out.

1

Scudmiss t1_j0a3v1q wrote

Good thing she obviously spoke with the victim’s families before she made this decision. Oh, wait…

1

tomNJUSA t1_j07v43w wrote

The problem with this is the "no chance of parole" will be fought and probably obtained by some of these scumbags.

0

LiosIsHere t1_j084x57 wrote

Commute? She makes them travel from work to home and back?

−1

Craftkorb t1_j07dn0o wrote

How uplifting seeing people die. True hero of our time.

−2

anamal25 t1_j072s29 wrote

I support the death penalty and abortion, so I guess I’m Pro Death? The idea that 99 evil people going free to prevent the death of one innocent is somehow the moral high ground is strange to me. 99 evil people can do a huge amount of lasting damage to our society as a whole.

−3

CoolmanWilkins t1_j073fpl wrote

No one is going free here lol. They're not just opening the gates of the death row.

15

Slavic_Dusa OP t1_j0736sz wrote

Not if they are locked up. Also, being isolated to that extent is a far bigger punishment to most than simply ending it. Their life is over ether way.

11

anamal25 t1_j07auxr wrote

I’m not concerned with punishment, I’m concerned with neutralizing a threat.

−3

Slavic_Dusa OP t1_j07bltr wrote

No, you are not. You are just arguing semantics

7

VincentOostelbos t1_j0819ne wrote

I agree with that sentiment. However, I disagree with your earlier comment above, because "going free" is not the only alternative to the death penalty.

5

lessquiet t1_j07a9uh wrote

what kind of "lasting damage" are they going to do rotting in a cell?

5

anamal25 t1_j07amzh wrote

As long as they are alive, they have the capacity to do more harm.

−8

lessquiet t1_j07fpbh wrote

I am personally harmed by the State killing people in my name.

2

StinkyEttin t1_j09qbgd wrote

Dunno why you're getting downvoted; you're right. If killing folks is bad, it's bad regardless of who does it.

2

infamous-spaceman t1_j07m185 wrote

It's not like these people are going free. They will end up in prison, probably until they die.

3

Poyojo t1_j0948ei wrote

Seems like a decent trade until that one innocent person is your brother.

2

queue1102 t1_j06y5yd wrote

Why do they even bother with trials and juries then? Her actions just invalidated the work of at least 187 jurors who had to make the hard decision to convict a criminal for some heinous crime. She may as well make herself queen of Oregon.

−9

militaryCoo t1_j072bi6 wrote

This is dumb. They're not releasing them, they're just not killing them

9

queue1102 t1_j07tpdh wrote

You know what, you convinced me, no one deserves to die. Not the Hitler's, the Putin's the Goebbels, the Pol Pots, etc. of the world. It's not like Hitler ever did any harm from prison or anything right? Not like that's where Mein Kampf was written or anything...

−5

Slavic_Dusa OP t1_j073iq1 wrote

Jurors don't get to decide what the punishment is. That is what judges do. Jurors' job is to say if they think a person committed a crime or not.

5

FNboy t1_j088phx wrote

This is not true. The criminal trial is is two phases - the first determines guilt or innocence based on the charged crimes. The second phase is punishment, and a unanimous verdict must be reached to commit someone to death.

2

queue1102 t1_j07s234 wrote

According to justice.gov, you are incorrect. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/sentencing See also, 18 U.S.C. 3593-94. Additionally, in Oregon, it requires unanimous juror consent to issue the death penalty, so 204 citizens were wronged.

0

GoPointers t1_j09q8rr wrote

Oregon used to allow for nonunanimous juries in felony trials but that just recently changed. I'm not sure if that included capital punishment.

1

Comprehensive-Leg752 t1_j06fg9k wrote

We don't give the death penalty lightly. If you've received it, it's because you've done something that deserves a medieval execution as opposed to being put to sleep. They are unconscious as they pass.

−12

SpamMyDuck t1_j06pc6k wrote

>If you've received it, it's because you've done something that deserves a medieval execution as opposed to being put to sleep.

Unless you're one of the many humans wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.

> They are unconscious as they pass.

Except when they aren't - Private Autopsy Documents ​‘Carnage’ Experienced by Alabama Death-Row Prisoner Joe Nathan James During Longest Botched Lethal-Injection Execution in History

19

TotalProfessional391 t1_j06r379 wrote

6 years ago I did a little story on a man who had spent 26 years in prison, sentenced to death row, for a crime he didn’t commit.

His mother died while he was in jail believing that the state was going to murder her innocent son.

He was eventually exonerated when the sole eyewitness that the state relied on to convict him recanted his testimony 26 years later as he was dying and had told his pastor that he made the whole thing up.

These guys were just 16 when it all happened. You can guess the race.

Death penalty may feel like a just solution, but the system isn’t mature enough to handle it. Innocent people do get put to death and that fact alone demands abolishment.

8

j_sholmes t1_j06s92f wrote

Couldn't you logically apply this to any punishment though?

−4

CdrJamesCool t1_j06ue8a wrote

You can, yes. However, if an innocent person has been put to death, that’s it. They’re dead.

11

j_sholmes t1_j0bidfc wrote

Yes, but we all know that the sentence isn't carried out a week from now...the process takes decades in most cases.

How many people have lived their entire lives behind bars...why aren't we talking about that as well?

1

TotalProfessional391 t1_j06vc3j wrote

Sure but none are as severe or irreversible as killing someone.

There are a number of other reasons the death penalty is a poor and a antiquated system:

It costs taxpayers up to 50% more (than a life sentence) to convict a death penalty case and to run the system.

Many states find it hard to source reliable drugs to administer the deaths, since manufacturers increasingly refuse to be associated with state-sponsored murder. This can lead to botched executions and longer stays on death row, again taxing the system.

While there are many cases in which a murderer may not seem fit to rehabilitate, there are many cases in which they could. Like in the case if Kwame that I posted, even if he had been guilty he was 16 and grew up in a neighbourhood where children are prone to gang violence. It could be argued that the money spent to maintain death row could rather be spent on inner city programming to help prevent violence in the first place.

But if you’re someone who’s loved one was murdered none of these will matter. That’s why we need to come to these decisions as a society and not as the individual.

None of this is as compelling a case for abolishment in my eyes than the fact that innocent people are on death row.

Over 300 people have been exonerated from death row. That’s a fucking genocide.

Edit: I forgot to mention that there are no federal or state reintegration programmes for exonerated people. I guess because they means the gov would have to admit that they get the death sentence wrong.

So if you’ve spent 30 years on death row only to be proven innocent, you’re thrown out on the streets with not so much as even bus money to go.. where?

The US is so fucked.

Disclaimer: I’m Canadian.

7

AtsignAmpersat t1_j071igu wrote

The main problem is when they are wrong and it can’t be undone.

5

Cheap_Cheap77 t1_j06zybj wrote

Yes because the Innocent Project is an organization famous for having nothing to do all day

2

tangogogo t1_j07gjj2 wrote

would recommend crazy, not insane available on hbo max

1

Wise-KansasCity816 t1_j05z0qi wrote

So she opposed the death penalty yet ran for gov. in a death penalty state voted by the people and on her way out she gave voters her middle finger? Can’t the next governor just reinstate the sentences?

−28

jewelswan t1_j0647k3 wrote

I don't think you can say she gave voters the middle finger, since very little of the voters were around to vote in 1978, and no popular movement demanded executions continue in the nearly 30 years since they last executed someone.

18

xanderdox t1_j06mdop wrote

No, they cannot. If she had administratively paused the executions then yes the next governor could unpause that, but she commuted their death sentences.

That cannot be undone, there is no takesies-backsies on pardons and commutations once they’ve occurred.

6

Wise-KansasCity816 t1_j070r56 wrote

Thank you for clearing that up. Seems highly unlikely that all were not wrongly convicted and how alive they must be feeling right now being able to set goals in life and the relief that comes from being shown mercy. Opposition of the people in this manor is neither right or just and without dishonor and sudden discharge we will continue to see this trend when protecting the people are no longer a gain. Police discipline and how they conduct themselves starts here, it is the head of the snake and a dangerous place to live during a transition like this one.

−6

militaryCoo t1_j072id4 wrote

I'm going to need some dressing for this word salad

4

GoPointers t1_j09r5ll wrote

The previous governor paused the death penalty a decade or so ago and it's unlikely to ever come back here. So these felons who a jury decided deserved capital punishment were never going to get that anyhow.

1