Skip to main content

View Diary: The Progressive Moral Case for the Death Penalty (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't know much about death penalty law? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seancdaug, lyvwyr101

    Do you?

    You realize that what you're suggesting is basically the system now, right? "Heinous single slayings," that is. The death penalty cannot be imposed without aggravating factors being present (these are the things that the state has determined makes a murder "heinous."

    How exactly is your proposal different? Aside from you being the single arbitor of what constitutes a heinous slaying?

    "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." ~Bobby Kennedy

    by Grizzard on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:36:36 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  who says I am the arbiter ? (0+ / 0-)

      and I said the goal of progressives should be to improve the system.

      federalize it (states run elections, but civil rights laws trump)

      narrow the standing rules (cases without doubt)

      narrow the process (trial, appeal, application for cert, that's it)

      yes, it CAN be done far cheaper, far surer, and far faster, without ANY constitutional degradation, because it cant get much worse than it is right now....

      Out of my cold dead hands

      by bluelaser2 on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:48:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Abolishing it *is* improving it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "It cant get much worse" is not an argument. First, yes, it can. Ask 1910s Russia, or 1920s Germany. It can always get worse. Second, that implies that any change is inherently a good one. In which case, demanding that all executions be held on Wednesday morning before The Price is Right by an ex-heavyweight boxer and ice cream truck driver named Brutus would be a meaningful reform. Saying "it can't get much worse" is fine as a conversation starter. But if your supporting argument ends there, as it seems to have done, you've got a problem.

        And, as I've mentioned before, you've got a weird ideological basis for your pro-death penalty stance, at least insofar as you want progressives to adopt it. "Life=money" is very hard to envision as an argument bound to win over a movement that closely aligned itself with Occupy Wall Street, celebrates a self-described socialist as its champion in the Senate, and has spent a decade or more decrying the corrosive influence of money on politics. If that's your argument, I think you may need to go a little deeper and explain why we should consider "property" equivalent to, if not more important than, "life" and "liberty." Because that's not the self-evident argument you seem to think it is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site