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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    When you hear the acts of each, you won’t believe that he did this. Makes no sense. Relatives and friends are further devastated. They can’t believe this is happening.

    That’s because like Trump, those people don’t understand justice, they only understand revenge. Trump thinks literally everyone is a horrendous person who wants to wantonly murder others just like him. Control over whether someone lives or dies is the ultimate control, and the one Trump craves most. It’s super clear why this is so upsetting to him, he got his favorite type of domination and control taken away. His toys.

    • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 days ago

      Remember that Trump said that “Relatives and friends are further devastated. They can’t believe this is happening.” Without source, and can be dismissed as something he made up on the spot. The families of the victims are a mixture of reactions some are in support some opposed and some can’t be found for comment.

    • Tgo_up@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      53
      ·
      3 days ago

      Justice is a feeling. It’s not a factual thing. You can’t scientifically deduce whether justice has been served or not in a specific case.

      Some people think eye for an eye is justice, some have other ideas of what justice is.

      • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Yeah which is why we have legal guardrails - to protect us from folks who think “eye for an eye” is a sane way to operate in the 21st century. They can have their opinion, but I sure don’t want them setting what is legal.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          3 days ago

          Exactly this. People with primitive fairy tales telling them what is “justice” should not be setting the rules for anything.

        • Tgo_up@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days 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.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days 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.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days 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.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days 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.

                • Tgo_up@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  18 hours ago

                  Back when slaves were legal it was illegal to kill a slave owner. I understand that and I think that’s how it needed to be. You can’t have laws that killing someone is legal.

                  On the other hand I don’t morally condemn the slaves that rose up and actually did kill their “owners”.

                  I absolutely can say something should be illegal but in certain cases I’m cool with it happening.

                  • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    14 hours ago

                    Did you just gloss over “then you need to change the law”? Maybe even my entire comment?

                    At no point did I ever say laws should guide our morals. I’m saying you don’t codify laws you don’t intend on following. Your slavery example is an irrelevant cheap shot that we both know does not reflect my position. Hell it’s not even relevant to yours. It’s an entirely different discussion on whether laws = morality when it should be our values informing our laws, none of which is the discussion af hand.

                    You said murder should be illegal but that you still condone it in some cases as you believe it’s the only effective solution. This is the discussion at hand. If you have special carve outs where you’re allowed to ignore the law based on your personal whims then the law is meaningless. You must alter the law or your stance, your two stated views are contradictory.

      • kofe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        3 days ago

        Check out restorative justice models. One in Colorado has boasted 95% victim satisfaction and recidivism crashed from 50 down to like 10%. We can use this data to demonstrate what justice models are better, regardless of a definitive definition.

        • Tgo_up@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I know those models and am all for them. I’m Scandinavian so I’m not at all for eye for an eye type of justice.

          The original comment I was replying to said something along the lines of “these people don’t understand justice”.

          I was just pointing out that justice is a feeling more than anything else. You can point out that restorative justice is a better way for society to go and it works better for most individuals too but if someone says that they don’t feel like justice has been served you can’t say they’re wrong.

          They just have a different opinion on what justice is.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Some people think the earth is flat - that doesn’t mean it is.

        Justice is a pretty nebulous abstract thing, I agree with that, but modern society has a pretty clear understanding that retribution isn’t Justice.

        • Tgo_up@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          What does flat earth has to do with this? The shape of the earth is NOT an opinion. It’s a provable fact.

      • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s why some people don’t get control over what happens to the convicted. We do know our justice system isnt perfect and makes more mastakes than what even the most rational person would find unacceptable. There is no going back once the state murders someone. And unless we have equal punishment for whomever caused a innocent person to be executed by the state. It should be outlawed in all cases.