Pick one.
Capital punishment is a state level policy. The USA has almost 400 million people and has never been a monolith of culture, thought, beliefs, or values. Missouri is a shit state with shit policies.
Edit: I accidentally became so sleep-deprived that I forgot a constitutional amendment has a separate proposal and ratification process. The SCOTUS method would 100% work, though, and it hasn't yet been banned at the federal level which is a simple majority of Congress and a presidential signature, so they do overall endorse it.
The votes of about 355 legislators and the signature of Joe Biden could end this today; it’s the stroke of a pen, and they simply don’t do it.
And 269 of those legislators are Republicans, most of which are uncaring sociopathic individuals who were voted in by a party of spiteful, hateful, racist voters.
The best way to change that situation is to vote. Don't bitch about it. Vote.
This case went before the SCOTUS requesting an emergency block, where it was voted against 6–3. The SCOTUS had the power to trivially prevent this and decided not to.
Wow... 6-3, I wonder where I've heard that split before? Oh, right, it's the same SCOTUS split that has been going on ever since Trump put three immoral and corruptible judges unto the Supreme Court, voted in by Republicans in the Senate, who were in turn, voted in by Republicans.
The best way to change that situation is to vote. Don't bitch about it. Vote.
The majority of US states (27) as well as the federal government have state-sanctioned murder on the books as a legal criminal punishment. 12 states and the federal government have carried it out in the last 10 years.
And most of those states are red states... you know, the states filled to the brim with Republicans.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
And 269 of those legislators are Republicans
I 100% agree with you that they're vermin. My point is that they nonetheless are members of the federal government which could otherwise ban this.
Don't bitch about it. Vote.
I'm quite content to do both actually, thank you very much.
I wonder where I've heard that split before?
Yes, and I've mentioned that split elsewhere in this thread; doesn't mean that these traitorous fucks don't have control over the entire US through essentially unchecked authority and that that is – say it with me – inherently the fault of the United States.
Most of those states are red states.
Nobody's disputing that. See the first portion of this response.
I think you think what I'm saying is some kind of weird both-sidesism (it's not; the world would be a markedly better place if every Republican were replaced by a Democrat counterpart), but the fact is that a ban on capital punishment can't happen because the US is backward enough to have too many of these Republicans representing it.
Why will voting change it? Democrats had majorities before and didn't do squat
You think the federal government can, with enough votes, create a Constitutional amendment? Back to government class with you:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/
Reading about it I am not completly convinced that he is innocent, but I think that there is 100% plausible reason to doubt that he is guilty. This should defintly be enough to stop an execution.
Edit: Maybe read the whole statement before getting a rage fit? I said he shouldn't have been killed. I am also not moderate and (according to US standards) I am apparently not white as a muslim turkish person.
I'm convinced he is innocent. If he was not they would have evidence instead of paid testimonies against him.
It doesn't matter if he did it or not, honestly. If the state can't be 10000% certain the person they are about to murder is guilty of a heinous crime then it shouldn't be possible to fucking murder them.
This isnt about innocence. This is about the state denying this Black Muslim man due process and constitutional protections.
And on that note, its impossible to prove guilt in these cases, which is why the death penalty needs to be abolished. Are you comfortable with the idea of bring executed for a crime because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Because I'm sure fucking not.
Maybe you should have read my whole statement before writing this wall of text?
That's fine with a sentence of a couple years. But for how hard we've seen it become to commute a sentence, we need to be 100% sure for the death penalty.
Call me radical, but I don't think any government should be killing people.
There are a lot of governments in the world that agree with you. Not the US government, not at all.
For the record, the super majority of pro-life Christian, patriotic judges in SCOTUS voted against stopping this on a 6-3 ruling.
Misleading title, this was a Missouri State case, not a federal one.
That being said, there are way too many innocent people getting killed for crimes they did not commit.
The only purpose of the death penalty is revenge. It has no place in a modern society.
Both the death penalty, and a system of slave labor camps, are allowed at the federal level:
How is this a misleading title? On the one hand, yes, the fed can carry out state-sanctioned murder too (and it's something Trump resumed), but 1) it's absolutely the case that the "death penalty" should and could be banned nation-wide but isn't, and 2) this went before the SCOTUS for an emergency block, but it was voted 6–3 not to block (I'm guessing you know that all of the six were the treasonous fuckwits nominated by Republicans and all three were sensible jurists nominated by Democrats).
What happened here is absolutely still the fault of the federal government. Of course I still agree with the rest of your comment. I just mean to say that even if you somehow totally divorce a US state from the US itself, it's still the US' fault.
But officer, I didn't punch him! My fist did!
I did not hit her I did Naaaaaht! Ohimark!
This kind of thing makes me go into denial. I hate my country, but this absolutely cannot be real. It's horrible clickbait, or propaganda supporting my existing beliefs about how inhumane it is here.
I struggle to imagine someone administering a needle for an innocent man to die, rather than quitting on the spot. I struggle to imagine someone certifying paperwork to appove this to happen. But I am entirely incapable of imagining the number of human cogs that would need to be similarly compliant for this to be followed through to completion. I am not interested in trying to imagine. This story is fiction because admitting otherwise will break what's left of my sanity.
You can show me horrors and get me to admit and speak of them as reality, but you can't get me to believe them.
A stunning number of people in the links of that chain could've stopped it, and none of them cared to risk their employment over it.
I've seen it said that if you live in the US, you can ask yourself a question: "If you lived in Nazi Germany, what would you have done to oppose that state?"
The answer: You're doing it right now. Nazi Germany's leaders explicitly stated that its model of colonialism and expansionism in eastern europe, eugenics practices, and its racial state, were all based on the US model, which nearly successfully carried out everything Nazi Germany failed to do: eviction and genocide of its indigenous inhabitants, stealing a continent, and erecting a white-supremacist state on top of it.
The Innocence project is real and they do incredible work. They rarely take cases that don't have new DNA evidence due to the difficulty in overturning a conviction. They could probably use your financial support.
–The site which we don't speak of had a mainstream news article to this story monday night explaining that the state was already refusing to grant a stay of execution even with prosecuting attornies new doubts.
I've come to realize that a significant portion of people just think other people should die and that's fair and they're OK with being the ones to do it.
I saw an Instagram reel the other day of someone in the military describing the best way to decide who to kill and who not to as you storm a civilian building, plus the latest Behind the Bastards about Yarvin's affect on JD Vance and their belief that violence / killing and enforced poverty / slavery is not only a necessary but desirable method of governmental change - not as a reaction to oppression but as administrative.
someone in the military describing the best way to decide who to kill
Read a book by a Navy SEAL who was in Afghanistan. He said if they were wearing black Reeboks they were fighters, shoot to kill on sight.
I'm betting he was right! But Jesus, using that as a hard criteria to execute someone?!
This is not justice
Missouri speaks for the entire US now?
The US can be judged by the actions of any single state. It's all the same country 🙄
The fact that the US federal government has the power to outlaw this but doesn't, that this specific execution was brought before the Supreme Court and they voted against blocking it 6–3, and the fact that the majority of US states (27) and the federal government have this on the books speak for the US now, yes.
Taken to an absurd extreme, let's imagine that the US federal government and 27 of its states explicitly had statutes on the books stating "you can legally rape puppies", and you stepping in and saying "Well that doesn't speak for the entire US! Stop trying to make it sound like everyone condones puppy rape just because Missouri allows it!" Would you say that then? Because I feel like any rational person would be asking "Why does the US allow this to happen?" If not, why would you say it here? The US is simply backwards in this regard.
Sure, we'll pretend that this hasn't been happening here for hundreds of years across all 50 states.
The US government is horrible to people living within it and outside of it
ok so technically, this wouldn't be the US regime, this wouldn't even be a regime at all judging by modern contemporary definitions.
The dude was executed under state law. In the united states.
Can we stop referring to the US like this? I get that we have problems but jesus christ it feels loaded calling us a "regime" we're not all that oppressive, and we're not all that anti-democratic. Calling it a regime probably makes it more of a regime than it is by itself.
we could've had a productive discussion on the problems with capital punishment, but nope. here we are, not even talking about it at all (aside from the comment threads)
this wouldn’t even be a regime at all judging by modern contemporary definitions.
I'd like to see the definition you're talking about. The dictionary definitions definitely fit. Sometimes the definition doesn't even have negative connotations. You're just offended because someone used a word reserved for enemies of the US to describe the US.
not all that oppressive
not all that anti-democratic
under a post about an innocent person being executed despite mountains of exonerative evidence
you are not a serious person
It's not a productive discussion that's needed though. The death penalty has been going on for four centuries in the US. That's an awful lot of time for an awful lot of productive discussions, and yet innocent people are still being put to death by the machinery of the state. At this point we're just tired of it.
For the innocent victims of the death penalty, I imagine it feels like a regime. Like an inscrutable, bureaucratic behemoth, unable to change course even in the face of logic. It's inhumane, it's unreasonable. It's a regime - an immovable set of arbitrary rules where no single individual has to take responsibility, and no individual human being's decision can save you, even if you're innocent. It's a regime.
The last thing I will say on this topic is that the US is divided on abortion rights. Only 14 states have total abortion bans since Roe vs Wade was overturned and I doubt anyone here would be foolish enough to claim that those states speak for the entire population of the US. Yet when it comes to the execution by the state of Missouri of a black man, suddenly, that lone state speaks for an entire population of 330 million people.
suddenly, that lone state speaks for an entire population of 330 million people.
When someone calls a government a "regime" they're usually implying that the government doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people.