USA The death penalty is 'immoral'

[Jazzy]

Article-->Oregon governor calls death penalty 'immoral,' commutes sentences for all 17 inmates on death row

---

Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is 'immoral' and why?

 

[1689Dave]

Article-->Oregon governor calls death penalty 'immoral,' commutes sentences for all 17 inmates on death row

---

Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is 'immoral' and why?

I'm consistently pro-life. Anti-Capital punishment, Anti-war, anti-abortion (except as a life-saving surgical procedure.

 

[tango]

Article-->Oregon governor calls death penalty 'immoral,' commutes sentences for all 17 inmates on death row

---

Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is 'immoral' and why?

My primary concern with the death penalty is that there's no going back if the person subsequently turns out to be innocent. If the focus is more about getting a prosecution and locking someone up than about locking the guilty person up, and the unimaginable costs involved in mounting appeals if you're fighting the system as a whole, leaves me uneasy about the process.

It is curious that the people most vocal about the death penalty being immoral are often also the most vocal about abortion being a fundamental right. So you can terminate an unborn child who has done nothing wrong, but apparently can't terminate a violent criminal because it's immoral. It's odd.

 

[Josiah]

My primary concern with the death penalty is that there's no going back if the person subsequently turns out to be innocent. If the focus is more about getting a prosecution and locking someone up than about locking the guilty person up, and the unimaginable costs involved in mounting appeals if you're fighting the system as a whole, leaves me uneasy about the process.
It is curious that the people most vocal about the death penalty being immoral are often also the most vocal about abortion being a fundamental right. So you can terminate an unborn child who has done nothing wrong, but apparently can't terminate a violent criminal because it's immoral. It's odd.

What he said.....

I do not believe the death penalty is "immoral" but I think it's wrong.

1. For the reason Tango gave
2. Two wrongs rarely make a right.
3. It's not necessary; today we can keep people safe from them.

But politically, I AM bothered by liberal Democrats just imposing this on their people, by fiat. In the People's Republic of California, the death penalty is actually STATED in our Constitution, and the voter's here recently passed a proposition to keep it there and to indicate that the death penalty should be used. But Newsom, who PLEADED on a BIBLE that he would uphold the Constitution of the State of California and would enforce and apply the law, just declared this wrong and stated there would be no more such executions. Cuz Newsom is above the law, above the Constitution, above the people. The press all bowed before him for doing this. How liberals work. Now, I AGREE with him that it's not a good policy, but Newsom SHOULD have upheld the Constitution and Law as he promised God and us that he would- and used the democratic system to change that. But he just used dictatorial powers. Hardly the first time.




.




.

 

[tango]

The thing is that Newsom is demonstrably above the law.

It's a curious thing about the way the US works. The British were kicked out 200+ years ago because the people didn't want a king to have that much power. Now you have a president who issues executive orders and state governors who issue executive orders. An executive order would be unthinkable in the UK - unless something is passed by Parliament it doesn't become law.

Then you have governors who issue orders and break them with impunity, and the people still vote to keep them in office. Look at how Fuhrer Newsom ignored his own COVID-related edicts but survived a recall attempt, and contrast with Boris Johnson who broke his party's rules on COVID and was forced out of office by his own party.

I remember the uproar when Donald Trump allegedly said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. It seems that in deep blue states politicians with (D) after their name can get away with just about anything.

 

[Josiah]

The thing is that Newsom is demonstrably above the law.

It's a curious thing about the way the US works. The British were kicked out 200+ years ago because the people didn't want a king to have that much power. Now you have a president who issues executive orders and state governors who issue executive orders. An executive order would be unthinkable in the UK - unless something is passed by Parliament it doesn't become law.

Then you have governors who issue orders and break them with impunity, and the people still vote to keep them in office. Look at how Fuhrer Newsom ignored his own COVID-related edicts but survived a recall attempt, and contrast with Boris Johnson who broke his party's rules on COVID and was forced out of office by his own party.

I remember the uproar when Donald Trump allegedly said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. It seems that in deep blue states politicians with (D) after their name can get away with just about anything.

All should learn from the People's Republic of California, because what happens in California doesn't stay in California.... the Liberals learn what they can get away with.

The fundamental problem, IMO, is this is a one party state. There ARE a few registered Republicans (including me) and a few Republicans in the legislature, but not enough to be a factor. The Democrats can do anything they want, there just is no opposition that has any power. AND the press is just their mouthpiece, their lapdog. There are a couple of small newspapers in the Valley but virtually all the major ones are extremely liberal; they print only what serves the left, they no longer even pretend to be unbiased. AND every member of the state Supreme Court was appointed by Democrats, 100% of the are liberal Democrats. So, there is no counter, there is no opposition, there is no check.

Now.... those of you who don't live in California.... TAKE A LESSON. This is what liberals want, and they want it not just in one Western state.



.

 

[Albion]

It's a curious thing about the way the US works. The British were kicked out 200+ years ago because the people didn't want a king to have that much power. Now you have a president who issues executive orders and state governors who issue executive orders. An executive order would be unthinkable in the UK - unless something is passed by Parliament it doesn't become law...

I remember the uproar when Donald Trump allegedly said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. It seems that in deep blue states politicians with (D) after their name can get away with just about anything.

We were all raised with the view that the British system is all wrong because it's unstable, etc. But the Parliamentary system is beginning to look a lot better lately, isn't it?

For one thing, rule by edict (i.e. issuing executive orders in place of legislation) is fast becoming routine in the USA.

And for another, there is almost no way of legally removing a criminal or incompetent President from office, not even if that person won election on the basis of lies. The Parliamentary system of course does provide for changing Prime Ministers when the majority in Parliament acts on it.

And then also, the Parliamentary system makes possible more than two political parties, unlike the American system in which the two largest parties have all but outlawed any challenges from any other party.

 

[Josiah]

And then also, the Parliamentary system makes possible more than two political parties, unlike the American system in which the two largest parties have all but outlawed any challenges from any other party.

I have no basis to claim that the US system is better or worse than that in the UK. IMO, what MAY be the problem is when there is just one party. With no effectual opposition. No check. No free and unbiased press.


As I understand it, in Europe, it's common to have several parties - none with a majority - and so the members of such parties simply form alliances, so that TOGETHER they do have a controlling majority. It's very similar in the US, but here it happens within the parties. Each of our two parties are alliances of various special interests - and these groups fight for their power within the party, and these groups CAN even switch parties (the Pro-Life group used to align with the Democrats, but switched to the Republican party in the 70's, the Civil Rights group was aligned with the Republicans but switched to the Democrats in the mid 1960's).

These various special interests simply agree to cooperate; "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, I'll support your legislation if you support mine." Some of these groups can actually contradict each other, for example the Pro-Life, Gun rights, pro-military, and capitol punishment groups are all in the Republican Party. Other groups currently in the Republican Party: Financial conservatives, low taxes, pro-small business, Pro-Family, social conservatives, bigger role for individual states vs. federal government, "America First" folks, and more. All these alliances have their leaders and they struggle for their place in the power of the Party. It's the same in the Democrat Party (we are currently witnessing a struggle between the "old school" democrats that are pro-labor, pro-jobs and the socialist wing of the Party). All these special interests groups are NOT political parties in the US, they simply cooperate or align with others in a Party. It happens in the two parties rather than in the legislature.


To the topic: I'm opposed to the death penalty but I don't think it's immoral just unnecessary and I'm concerned about those rare (but real) situations where we learn of the person's innocence long after their conviction.


A blessed Advent and Christmas season to all...


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

I have no basis to claim that the US system is better or worse than that in the UK. IMO, what MAY be the problem is when there is just one party. With no effectual opposition. No check. No free and unbiased press.

As I understand it, in Europe, it's common to have several parties - none with a majority - and so the members of such parties simply form alliances, so that TOGETHER they do have a controlling majority. It's very similar in the US, but here it happens within the parties. Each of our two parties are alliances of various groups - and these groups fight for their power withing the party, and these groups CAN even switch parties....

I have no important reservation about what you've written. However, I'd like to note that the two parties, while having internal factions and special interest groups, do control, to a considerable extent, the ability of anyone to seek election and, also, to function in office after election.

Squelching, by law, all "third parties" has the effect of severely limiting the range of political opinion and legislative proposals...and some people would say that's not especially "democratic."

Consider the recent examples of such former members of Congress as Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan). Both were bright, thoughtful (and younger) members of their respective parties but are now forced to the sidelines because they were critical of some developments in their own parties. Meanwhile, other members of those parties are still influential as members of Congress even though they are much more "out of the mainstream" than these two persons I mentioned above.

 

[1689Dave]

“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:” Acts 2:23 (KJV 1900)

There is a sense where the murderer is as much a target of God's righteous wrath as the unsaved victim. So just as Jesus did not condemn a capital punishment case of a woman taken in adultery, neither do I. But for their own good, they should be kept from harming themselves and others.

 

[tango]

We were all raised with the view that the British system is all wrong because it's unstable, etc. But the Parliamentary system is beginning to look a lot better lately, isn't it?

For one thing, rule by edict (i.e. issuing executive orders in place of legislation) is fast becoming routine in the USA.

This is an area where it seems both sides are equally bad. If my party obstructs your party then they are just doing their job of holding the ruling party accountable. If your party obstructs my party then they are obstructing the elected ruling party and should be overruled by executive action. But then the situation starts to look like the kind of thing you'd expect from some tinpot banana republic, where an incoming president has barely sat down before they start signing executive orders to cancel the previous president's executive orders.

If the British Prime Minister attempted to impose a single executive order they would probably find their tenure as PM ended very fast. It's hard to see even their own party encouraging it and the opposition would have a field day with it.

And for another, there is almost no way of legally removing a criminal or incompetent President from office, not even if that person won election on the basis of lies. The Parliamentary system of course does provide for changing Prime Ministers when the majority in Parliament acts on it.

The British system does allow for a vote of no confidence although as I understand it the Prime Minister can only be removed by their own party. I don't think there is any way for the opposition to force the removal of a Prime Minister, and I'm not aware of any means for the people to force it to happen. Part of the reason there is that the PM is the elected Member of Parliament for their area, so people outside of their constituency never voted for them in any capacity.

And then also, the Parliamentary system makes possible more than two political parties, unlike the American system in which the two largest parties have all but outlawed any challenges from any other party.

It seems that third parties in the US achieve little more than spoiler status, where both major parties claim that a vote for (minor party) is a vote for (opposing major party). Where multiple smaller parties exist they can get individuals elected to Parliament where they represent their constituency even if they are the only member of that party in Parliament. I remember the claims that Ralph Nader had achieved little more than denying Al Gore the presidency by taking a very small share of the vote, but enough of the vote to wing the overall balance in favor of Bush.

Sometimes it means you get situations where there are two or three major parties with meaningful numbers of seats but no outright majority and they end up scrambling to form alliances to achieve an overall majority. It results in some curious situations, like the Conservative-LibDem alliance of several years ago. It was a bizarre union in just about every way and seemed to serve to do little more than damage the LibDem credibility. From what I recall the only viable alternatives were a Conservative-Labour union (which is hard to see ever happening) or a huge union between Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish Nationalists and the odd spattering of other minor parties. The latter would have ended up with all sorts of internal tension to maintain a majority so small it would have been unworkable from the beginning even before the inevitable infighting began.

 

[Albion]

This is an area where it seems both sides are equally bad. If my party obstructs your party then they are just doing their job of holding the ruling party accountable. If your party obstructs my party then they are obstructing the elected ruling party and should be overruled by executive action.

Well, that's not what Executive Orders are supposed to handle, and in any case, the abuse of Executive Orders dates only from the beginning of the current administration. This would be the best time, therefore, to put an end to it before any tit for tat takes over.

It seems that third parties in the US achieve little more than spoiler status, where both major parties claim that a vote for (minor party) is a vote for (opposing major party).

That is the case basically because the two governing parties have legislated in a way to make it nearly impossible for any third party, new or existing, to be effective. Were that not the case, one or several third parties might play an important role.

 

[tango]

Well, that's not what Executive Orders are supposed to handle, and in any case, the abuse of Executive Orders dates only from the beginning of the current administration. This would be the best time, therefore, to put an end to it before any tit for tat takes over.

It would be good to do away with them completely.

That is the case basically because the two governing parties have legislated in a way to make it nearly impossible for any third party, new or existing, to be effective. Were that not the case, one or several third parties might play an important role.

 

[Albion]

It would be good to do away with them completely.

I think I lean that way, too. If there is some emergency which might seem to justify an executive order, it follows also that the legislature wouldn't fail to act under the same conditions.

 

[tango]

I think I lean that way, too. If there is some emergency which might seem to justify an executive order, it follows also that the legislature wouldn't fail to act under the same conditions.

I get the impression people defend the executive order on the basis that if an emergency exists it's easier to sign an order than argue with a recalcitrant opposition party about how to respond to the emergency. Which is all well and good, but one would have to ask just what kind of emergency would justify such an order.

People refer to COVID but the UK managed to get its response handled through the normal parliamentary procedures. Certainly an executive order shouldn't be allowed unless there is a very compelling reason why things can't be done through the proper procedures.

 

[Albion]

I get the impression people defend the executive order on the basis that if an emergency exists it's easier to sign an order than argue with a recalcitrant opposition party about how to respond to the emergency. Which is all well and good, but one would have to ask just what kind of emergency would justify such an order.

It certainly is not the kind of "emergency" that the current occupant of the White House has been citing in his own defense. Certainly, nothing is foolproof when it comes to emergencies, but, on balance, taking Congress out of the decision-making at a time of emergency is a dangerous (and usually unnecessary) step. Fortunately, most presidents until now have been conscious of the responsibility that had been placed on them and were reluctant to abuse it.

People refer to COVID but the UK managed to get its response handled through the normal parliamentary procedures. Certainly an executive order shouldn't be allowed unless there is a very compelling reason why things can't be done through the proper procedures.

 

[tango]

It certainly is not the kind of "emergency" that the current occupant of the White House has been citing in his own defense. Certainly, nothing is foolproof when it comes to emergencies, but, on balance, taking Congress out of the decision-making at a time of emergency is a dangerous (and usually unnecessary) step. Fortunately, most presidents until now have been conscious of the responsibility that had been placed on them and were reluctant to abuse it.

I can see situations developing that require a response right now, rather than even tomorrow when Congress has had chance to meet and discuss. That said an emergency declaration (which is perhaps a better name for an executive order) should be time-limited to a few days at most. If for some reason Congress is unable to meet to discuss the matter the declaration could be extended if, say, three leaders of House/Senate approved it. Chances are the Senate and Congress leaders from the same party as the president would approve it but at least one leader from the opposition party would also need to approve it.