Ron DeSantis Says Florida Shouldn't Require Unanimous Juries for Death Sentences
"We can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this," DeSantis told a gathering of law enforcement officials.

While addressing a gathering of law enforcement officers on Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said he hopes to change state law to make it easier to execute convicted criminals.
Calling it "one of the things we have to address," DeSantis said that a "supermajority" of jurors ought to be sufficient to sentence someone to death.
"If just one juror vetoes it, then you end up not getting the sentence," DeSantis said during remarks delivered at the Florida Sheriffs Association Conference. "Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree, or something, but we can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this."
DeSantis was expressing his frustration with the decision of a jury in November to sentence Nikolas Cruz, who killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, to life in prison rather than handing down the death penalty. Despite the governor's description of the jury, FloridaPolitics.com notes that there were three jurors, not just one, who refused to impose the death penalty.
Prior to 2016, Florida allowed juries to impose the death penalty with as little as a 7-to-5 majority. That changed after the state Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that "the jury's recommended sentence of death must be unanimous" in order to comport with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. In a separate case decided at the same time, the state's high court invalidated a newly passed law that would have allowed the death penalty if 10 of the 12 jurors recommended it.
A year later, the state legislature and then–Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, approved a new law requiring unanimous juries in death penalty decisions.
While DeSantis' remarks on Monday were somewhat vague, it would appear the governor is preparing to revisit the territory staked out by that overturned 2016 law that would have allowed supermajority juries to recommend the death penalty.
He may face a more welcoming legal environment now, as the Florida Supreme Court in 2020 overturned its own ruling in that 2016 death penalty case. So while the state law requiring unanimous juries in death penalty decisions remains in force, the state's high court has signaled that convicts can once again be sentenced to death by non-unanimous juries.
Returning to a situation in which non-unanimous juries can impose the death penalty would make Florida a serious outlier in terms of capital punishment policy. Of the 30 states where the death penalty remains on the books, only Alabama allows a judge to impose the sentence with less than a majority of the jury agreeing—there, at least 10 jurors must vote for the death penalty, a higher threshold than what DeSantis suggested he'd like to see in Florida. The state would also be an outlier when compared with the standard required for federal death penalty cases, which must have a unanimous recommendation from the jury.
There's no doubt that the outcome of the Parkland shooter's trial elicited strong emotional responses from those closely affected by it. "There are certain crimes where any punishment other than [the death penalty] just doesn't fit the crime," DeSantis said Monday. "So I was very disappointed to see that."
But strong emotions are not the best guides for policy making—and that's especially true in situations where the stakes are quite literally life and death. As Reason's CJ Ciaramella noted in 2020, Florida has had more exonerations of death row inmates than any other state in the country: roughly one for every three executions carried out. That ought to inspire more humility, not aggressiveness, in deciding when the state should be allowed to kill.
Perhaps DeSantis has a more rational argument for changing Florida's death penalty laws to make it easier for the state to kill convicted criminals, but the case he outlined on Monday seems more based on vengeance than on justice.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
RE, the lede photo: When did DeSantis hire Django?
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more, see this article———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
Leading the nation again. Florida..where punks don't get bail and thugs get a firing squad. Good man...Good man. Best Italian American politician since the great Frank Rizzo.
Except for government employees that committed a capital offense as part of their employment/during their employment, government should not be applying death sentences on citizens.
OK, how about eternal exile?
Like gulag from Mad Max Thunderdome?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
Or the Phantom Zone.
So, foisting your problem onto some other unsuspecting jurisdiction? Sorry, no, that doesn't make seem like a workable policy.
Vigilantes then.
That's what prison effectively is: exile from society. It's just that the area where such exile can take place has shrunk dramatically and that we provide food and limited security at tax payer expense.
We could, of course, just send them to an island. Perhaps we could use Long Island; many of the people already there should probably be exiled anyway.
Maybe they could make a movie about it first.
And stop after one movie.
Sure, EZPZ. Now, how about "just private citizens" meting out mostly peaceful executions?
As sad as it sounds, the whole capital punishment debate has become a tangential branch of a branch of the root of the problem.
wesome Creativity ???? within 2min she made beautiful things... https://fb.watch/ibqFRBeGpB/
Just put the thugs in general population. Execution will be a lot quicker and cheaper!
The U.S. Supreme Court declared split-jury verdicts unconstitutional in 2020, in a ruling known as Ramos v. Louisiana.
Hmmm.
And yes, I know it's a different situation.
I think Ramos is quite on point. DeSantis is not a fool and surely knows that, so we can assume this is just more posturing for the moronic base.
Anyone who's even minimally familiar with the death penalty knows it's not a deterrent, it's killed a lot of innocent prisoners, it's fantastically expensive even compared to life without parole, and it's always been applied with extreme racial bias. So, no wonder.
Nope.
1. It decisively ends the ongoing threat from the individual who is executed.
2. How many innocent people have been executed in the last 20 years? Do you have a number? ‘A lot’ is meaningless.
3. Death row is expensive because of anti death penalty efforts. Executing someone is super cheap. So your slick is disingenuous at best.
4. “Applied with extreme racial bias”? Currently? Got a cite for that?
Your whole comment was cliche anti death penalty rhetoric. The bottom line is some people should be killed.
When they did a study to find racial bias, they found discrimination against black *victims* – that is, the killers of black people were less likely to get the death penalty. I don’t think they found discrimination against black *murderers.*
I don’t think murderers should have standing to complain about injustice to victims.
"How many innocent people have been executed in the last 20 years?"
How many innocent lives are within acceptable losses for you?
One is too many.
That isn’t an answer. Are there any?
Since Florida reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 99 people have been executed and 27 have been exonerated.
So the false conviction rate (pre-execution) for death penalty cases in Florida is 21.4%.
Someone who supports the death penalty will have to explain to me the logic behind supporting something that can't be undone, isn't a deterrent to murder, and isn't necessary to protect the community. Is it justified when there is better than a 1 in 5 chance that an innocent person will be executed?
If they got it right 100% of the time, that would be one thing. But they don't. They're barely getting a B- in their "we killed the right person" class.
Now imagine what happens if DeSantis' less-than-unanimous dreams become reality. Could it get as low as 50%? Probably not, but there's a solid chance of less than 60%. Are you OK with an F on your "killing the right person" report card? I'm sure DeSantis is fine with it. He'll trade votes for innocent lives in a heartbeat.
The appeal process is part of the judicial process.
We can restate your point: There is no evidence that anyone has been wrongfully executed in the modern era.
Question: How many people have been murdered by convicted killers who were not executed bc of opposition to the DP?
Answer: Many. Many.
And juries should be able to jumpstart executions with just a single juror. Not a majority or plurality and certainly not unanimous. One juror sends a powerful message – if anyone even intuits that you look guilty of something, then the specifics are all just technicality. Kill them. Stop lollygagging around. A bullet in head the nanosecond the juror decides
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
1) Everyone is a threat, some more than others. Why not just execute anyone we cannot eliminate as being possibly guilty? I mean if the goal is minimizing threat....
However, putting someone in prison for the rest of his/her life also ends the ongoing threat. That's why they have bars and fences and guards with guns.
2) I assume you mean "innocent of the crime they were convicted of" I would argue that 1 is too many.
National Academy of sciences says 4% on death row are innocent.
Since 1973 roughly 1500 people were executed and 190 were exonerated or taken off death row.
3) Yep, Death row is expensive because we want to make sure we got it right - right person and right punishment. So if you think it is worth it, then you will have to pay for it.
4) What, now we have to explain racial bias in our justice system - because you believe there is no bias or there is bias, its not racial though. Rich people don't get death penalty and I think 60% of those currently on death row are people of color.
I have two arguments against it.
a) The penalty doesn't reflect the strength of the case. You could be dead to rights guilty or found guilty by highly circumstantial evidence or just a jury that liked the prosecutor better than your lawyer.
b) The execution makes us worse as a society. Its a simple answer to a complicated question - like building a wall... Texas, which (at least at one time) was carrying out the most executions and had the most on death row - was still the state where you heard about the most horrific murders... So its not a deterrent. It literally solves nothing just causes more problems.
1. Plenty of lifers kill people in prison. And the people who end up with the death penalty are the worst of the worst. So your premise silly at best.
2. That’s not an answer. I didn’t ask for your philosophy. I asked for an actual number. Not of people exonerated. I want the number of innocent prisoners that were actually executed. And no guesses.
3. Again, not a real response. You’re just like the activists who sue over every detail of executions, strategically draw out appeals, etc., to drive up the costs. Then complain it costs so much. That’s disingenuous bullshit. It’s only expensive because YOU make it expensive.
4. So more opinion and monologuing, with zero facts.
You are right about one thing. Circumstantial cases should not be eligible for capital punishment. Beyond that, no society can be truly civilized without a well thought out death penalty.
Since 1976, 27 out of 126 people convicted with death penalty have been exonerated. Often due to perjury and other malign actions by law enforcement. So are you OK with less than an 80% success rate when the stakes are a person's life?
In other words, there is no evidence that even a single person has been wrongfully executed since 1976.
"Beyond that, no society can be truly civilized without a well thought out death penalty."
First, wow. Just wow.
Second, do you think we have a "well thought out death penalty"? And would it be better if the requirement was chsnged to require less than a unanimous jury verdict?
For decades, theocratic Republican abortion prohibitionists have deceitfully insisted (as does Fox News) that they are Pro Life (even though Republican governors have executed far more people than Democrat governors).
DeSantis has also falsely boasted that he is Pro Life, while now proposing more death penalties and more executions.
While I like many of DeSantis’s pro business and individual freedom policies, I vehemently oppose his theocratic abortion ban and his attempts to increase executions.
Just as men shouldn't be referred to as women, it's time to stop falsely referring to people who support the death penalty as Pro Life, which is just a deceptive code word for banning abortions.
"... it’s time to stop falsely referring to people who support the death penalty as Pro Life...'
Yep. I am reminded of something my late father once opined about Republicans believing that the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth. He wasn't being entirely serious, but still....
Right to life for the innocent. But that right can be forfeited if one does something sufficiently evil. It's not a contradiction.
I am against the death penalty, but it is not irrational. It just doesn't deter and it stirs up too many idiots. Rotting in prison for the rest of your life seems like an equally awful punishment to me.
That is hilarious! I'm going to shamelessly steal that one.
Only people who are willing to defend innocent life and hold heinous criminals responsible for their crimes should be called pro-life.
If you are anti DP, then you are too sanctimonious to respect innocent life.
Speaking as somebody not morally opposed to death penalty (I oppose it because the government cannot adequately manage a bowel movement, much less decisions of life and death), it is a guilt v innocence thing.
Know who is 100% innocent every time? The baby killed in the womb. Did nothing to anybody. Do not know why their lives seem to meaningless to you, but c'est la vie.
now now, give them rape. a crime was committed, so something should die.
"The baby killed in the womb. Did nothing to anybody. Do not know why their lives seem to meaningless to you, but c’est la vie."
Au contraire. Their lives are not "meaningless." But I do find it ironic. And, no, I am not opposed to the death penalty in all cases. But I do tend to trust juries more than judges or governors.
But I do tend to trust juries more than judges or governors.
... to say nothing of the sorts of women who can't effectively employ birth control *or* deal with the consequences should they fail.
Not everybody that has an abortion also had consensual sex.
Yeah only 98.5%.
Think it's 99%+
Not everybody who reads "sorts of women" translates that into "all women".
Are you defending Nicolas Cruz? Would I be disingenuous in implying that you were?
Of course, that is irrelevant to the abortion debate.
If anti-abortionists ever tried to establish their premise that a pre-viable fetus or a fertilized egg was a person with rights, it might be a different conversation.
But we'll never know because they will never try. They just skip the premise part and proclaim their conclusion to be true without evidence or support.
Sorry, but, within certain limits, I choose the bodily autonomy of the would-be mother over the power of the government to use said-be woman's body as an incubator.
"Innocents" are killed by the government all the time, when the government decides it's in the "national interest."
Sorry, but, within certain limits, I choose the bodily autonomy of the would-be mother over the power of the government to use said-be woman’s body as an incubator.
OK, sure. Now demonstrate the equality/equity/reciprocity of those "certain limits" at the beginning of life on the one hand of the would-be mother with the end of life for the would be murderer's. More concisely; for every Nicolas Cruz how many women with 17+ abortions under their belt do you think there are? More exactingly; for every James Alex Fields, how many women with 1+ abortions do you think there are?
I notice you ignored the rest of my post:
“Innocents” are killed by the government all the time, when the government decides it’s in the “national interest.”
First, just to reiterate, I don’t think we’re radically divergent on either issue.
That said, not ignored. It was aliased in the analogy. Would-be mother’s bodily autonomy is, presumably, a national, or civil, interest and killing any/every baby constitutes the killing of infants in defense of it. Kyle Rittenhouse was exercising bodily autonomy. George Zimmerman, more debatably, was exercising bodily autonomy. Regardless of what the law says, I think we both agree that OJ Simpson, Oscar Pistorius, and Nicolas Cruz were not exercising bodily autonomy (or doing it poorly).
Take all the sex/gender, law, politics, etc. out of it and go straight statistics: 12 angry “men”: 0.5% (or 1% or 10%?) false positive rate x 1000 decisions per year = 5 false executions per year. 1 desperate woman: 0.01% (really?) false positive rate x 10000 decisions per year = 1 false abortions per year.
Do you really think 12 angry “men” are 50X more likely to be wrong? Do you really think there are less than 10X as many abortion decisions as there are execution decisions in any given year? Seems like even if you thought the former, supporting the latter would only exacerbate the situation. Again, not a “gotcha!” just “How *much* more leeway do you grant an individual woman (or man) outside the jury box rather than in?”.
Okay. Let me clarify: I support a woman's right to an abortion up to the end of the first trimester. After that it becomes problematical for me, though in cases of rape, incest, and some other circumstances, I still side with the woman.
When I meant by the government killing "innocents," I was referring to the draft, which is enshrined in law. Thirty percent of the deaths in Vietnam were draftees. Yet, given the parameters of the Militia Act (the presumed legal basis for the draft), folks over 45 are exempt. The government decides, arbitrarily, which innocents get to live or die. So much for "bodily autonomy" if you aren't in the "right" class of people.
Okay. Let me clarify: I support a woman’s right to an abortion up to the end of the first trimester. After that it becomes problematical for me, though in cases of rape, incest, and some other circumstances, I still side with the woman.
Personally, I'm more of a 8-12 weeks kinda guy specifically because if (e.g.) Alec Baldwin shoots and wounds Hylana Hutchins and she shows up in the ER, until her heart and brainwaves stop, Alec hasn't conclusively killed anyone.
When I meant by the government killing “innocents,” I was referring to the draft, which is enshrined in law.
Whoa, left field! I think we are 100% aligned on the draft. No exceptions ever. I presumed "killing innocents" to be the inflection point somewhat indicated above. If we convicted and executed Alec Baldwin for murder, we would've killed an innocent. Safe, I think, for us, to set the draft aside, firmly in the "Agreed. No, not ever." bin for the rest of death penalty/abortion discussion.
That said, my inflection point: Maybe Alec is guilty and we'd be killing an innocent, maybe we wouldn't ~ Maybe killing a 10-week old fetus with a heartbeat and brainwaves is killing an innocent, maybe it isn't. I don't believe we're anywhere near the number of dead "Alec Baldwins" as we are the number of dead humans with heartbeats and brainwaves. And if we're just equating "killing innocents" with "killing innocents" the 'certain limits' should be consistent. I think the limits placed upon preventing dead Alec Baldwins is far more stringent, secure, and functional than what we have preventing other humans from having their brain and heart functions terminated because it might inconvenience someone whom they may've accidentally transgressed against or accidentally transgressed against them.
Innocents are killed, in gory spectacle at regular intervals, because of the policy choice of maximum gun liberalism.
So you're right to point out that the law entails such painful moral compromises at all levels, at all times. Some quandaries are easier than others, of course.
Do you even engage honestly in a discussion? Or is it always dripping with hysterics, hyperbole, and false context?
We need to start referring to you as Tony Rupar.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
We should send Tony one way to Canada. There he can be subjected to the authoritarian socialism he so craves by having the government there euthanize him.
I think that’s something everyone here can agree on.
I second.
Nice try, but just because someone wants to also consider the pregnant woman’s rights and also whether the baby has developed beyond, say, the embryo stage does not imply that person considers the baby’s life insignificant.
It's not a baby, it's an embryo. Look it up.
And all those picture of D&C's the anti abortion crowd loves? Those fetuses had already died.
No woman will go through two months of pregnancy just to end it voluntarily.
No woman will go through two months of pregnancy just to end it voluntarily.
That would be weird considering that ENB and others specifically cite 8 weeks as unacceptable because, ostensibly, lots of women go nearly that long without even realizing they're pregnant.
If no woman would ever do it, then criminalizing it shouldn't be any more controversial than criminalizing a 66-yr.-old guy having sex with 14-yr.-old girls on his private island.
"Know who is 100% innocent every time? The baby killed in the womb."
Until anti-abortion fanatics like you actually prove that a fertilized egg (which barely has more than a 25% chance of surviving to become an actual human) is a person, you're just a tiny minority of people who believe in magic and want to force the rest of us to act like we do as well.
You aren't right. You never have been. And no matter how many times you claim moral superiority, call people murderers, talk about a "genocide", or any of the other idiocy you smugly put out into the world, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. 85% of Americans know abortion isn't murder. You know it, too, you just can't admit it.
You and your tiny cadre may have managed to get rid of Roe, but you don't have the support to outlaw abortion nationally. You probably don't have the ability to stop all of the various workarounds that have been created, never mind the ones that people will come up with in the future.
The only way you could stop the innovation that abortion bans have sparked is to go all-in on legislative authoritarianism, banning travel, charging women, and creating barriers to modern medical care because those methods might, possibly, maybe be used for medicinal abortions.
Abortion won't ever stop. It isn't viewed as a moral evil by most people. Five decades of effort by anti-abortionists and other fanatics hasn't changed that. Nothing you and your totalitarian compatriots do will change that. Your beliefs aren't reasonable, convincing, or logical and almost everyone rejects them.
In a perfect world anti-abortionists will continue to overreach and force the Republican party to double down on your unpopular position. Once you start costing Rs elections (like the midterms, but worse), they will kick you to the curb like the toxic lunatics you are.
If you’re still voting for democrats, you’re morally inferior.
I vote for both. I haven't been able to split-tucket vote for national races since the Tea Party primaried Mike Castle and we lost a good US congressman to a Tea Party wingnut.
I had the same problem in the US Senate when Bill Roth didn't retire and ended up collapsing on the campaign trail twice, leading to his defeat. If he had ushered in another fiscal conservative I would have happily continued voting for them.
Now all we get from the Republicans in national and governor's races are culture war fringe players who don't appeal to the largely moderate, significantly Catholic (25%) voters.
We have good local Republican candidates who I frequently vote for, especially for treasurer, county executive, and sheriff.
But by and large the Republican party has lost their moral compass and I don't see them regaining it any time soon.
It is interesting regarding death penalty and abortion, as a general rule, people who support one oppose the other.
I don't think that's true. I suspect you'd find a very poor correlation of those positions if there's any. I did a quick search and can't seem to find a poll but I have to imagine someone has done this before.
You think? Politically anyway, the right tends to oppose abortion while celebrating executions. Conversely the left tends to oppose the death penalty while celebrating abortions.
I know there's a very strong contingent of Christians who are anti death penalty and anti abortion. I suspect there's probably a segment of people on the left who are pro death penalty and pro abortion, though I don't know what the connective fabric is for them.
Maybe the positions do graph the way you suggest but I'd like to see some evidence.
I said politically. As in, well, politics.
Candidates win on the right by opposing abortion, and candidates win on the left by supporting it. Likewise someone on the right who wants to expand the death penalty will do well while a bleeding heart liberal who wants to abolish it will also do well.
I think economists call this revealed preferences.
The left doesn’t allow for a diversity of thought or opinion.
Nobody celebrates abortions.
I'm sure executioners say nobody celebrates the death penalty.
We’d celebrate yours.
"Nobody celebrates abortions"
Wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w955V6ULd4&ab_channel=Netflix
https://shoutyourabortion.com
The old libertarian-Republican playbook. Find some blue hair doing something weird somewhere on some blog, and that's all the justification you need to bring the swift hammer of the US federal government down on everyone's crotches.
The old goal-post shifting playbook. Say "Nobody is doing this," and then backpedal rapidly when shown evidence that people are, in fact, doing exactly that.
Shit, I celebrate it. Legal abortion, in some way totally unintentionally, is one of the great social advances ever devised by human beings. Abortion and other forms of reproductive control not only freed women to participate in public life, they freed families everywhere of the burden of unwanted children, which may have significantly reduced all manner of social ills a generation later relative to before. Abortion is great. It should be celebrated alongside vaccines and the printing press and cosmology as unqualified triumphs of the human spirit.
But no mother getting an abortion throws a party. It seems rather a hassle for the most part. Maybe they should throw a party though.
“Nobody celebrates abortions”
"The old libertarian-Republican playbook. Find some blue hair doing something weird somewhere on some blog,...."
"Shit, I celebrate it."
Wow, we went from "It's not happening" to "it's happening and that's a good thing" in three hours. New record!
Fine, I retract my earlier statement about how nobody celebrates an abortion in favor of my paean to abortion.
Holy shit, the dishonesty and depravity of Tony in this one thread is impressive!
Most people will read this and think Tony's a fucking monster.
But Tony won't understand why.
Tony will be confused because he thinks everything he said was good things.
But he thinks they're good because he's a fucking monster.
Tony, leftists are soulless monsters. You’re a poster child for that.
how about this nobody
Gloria Steinem does.
Your ideological heroes in Hollywood do. They shouted out their abortions and how wonderful their abortions made their lives all last year after Roe was properly struck down.
I don't see a problem with the situation if true. As sarc is want to do, the only problem or conundrum is if you reduce a multi-dimensional issue down to a single dimension:
"It is interesting regarding the brake and the gas pedal, as a general rule, people who have their foot on the gas don't have their foot on the brake."
To wit: No shit.
Similar to Jefferson's Ghost's (Dad's) quote above (not to, in any way, personally conflate JG, or his Dad, with sarc), "Republicans believe that your right to use the brake is completely unfettered until after you've stepped on the gas."
Again: No shit.
This may come as a shock to you, but some of us aren't fans of abortion nor are we fans of the state killing people. Strange. I know. You probably think we drive with both feet on the pedals.
This may come as a shock to you, but when you say something, someone else says "I don't think that's true." and rebutt them, I'm not disagreeing with, let alone attacking you.
It may come as a further surprise that, regardless of your feelings on abortion or the death penalty, I would be in no way surprised if you actually do drive with both feet on both pedals.
Too ad hominem for you or not enough?
I oppose both... strongly.
I oppose abortion because you're murdering someone who is completely human by every metric, and an individual. Though psychopaths like Bill may whinge about "theocracy", it takes serious magical thinking to claim people in the embryonic or fetal stages are not. The vast majority of abortions break bones, crush organs, silence brain activity and stop a heartbeat.
I oppose the death penalty because even though some people are monsters who deserve to be ripped to shreds by wild pigs, there are so many crooked cops, forensics experts, prosecutors and judges that the system is untenable when it comes to delivering actual justice. Plus, giving the state the power of life or death over citizens is begging for abuse and should be anathema to every libertarian.
So what do you make about that, sarcasmic?
"I oppose abortion because you’re murdering someone who is completely human by every metric, and an individual."
Shit, a fetus doesn't even have a heart until 10 weeks. It doesn't have a brain that can support life until 20 weeks at the very earliest. Ditto for lungs. The list of ways that a fetus isn't completely human is really, really long at fertilization and doesn't shrink to zero until, in one case, 21 weeks. Every other case? Longer than that.
"The vast majority of abortions break bones, crush organs, silence brain activity and stop a heartbeat."
Most abortions require two pills. Almost none break bones or crush organs. The "brain activity" most abortions "silence" are insufficient to regulate the body or support life. I'm always baffled as to why a heartbeat is significant to anti-abortionists, since there are heartbeats before a brain actually exists, so it's just an emotional play, not a serious argument.
Please leave me alone ML. I'm not talking to you. I will never talk to you. Ever. Your posts do nothing but clutter conversations that I have with people who argue honestly from a position of good faith. That excludes you. So please. Pretty please. With sugar on top. Fuck off.
Wow trollboy. That’s a lot of excuses to say you’re too frightened to defend the garbage you spout.
You are describing you're own behavior. I've seen you behave many times here in the way you describe.
That’s you. Not ML, who tangibly contributes to discussion. You’re usually just a drunken rageaholic. Babbling about Trump, or screaming about how everyone is a big meanie to Reason.
Just as men shouldn’t be referred to as women, it’s time to stop falsely referring to people who support the death penalty as Pro Life, which is just a deceptive code word for banning abortions.
If I could trade Cruz's life for the 17 that he took, I would. How about you?
"theocratic Republican abortion prohibitionists... Pro Life, which is just a deceptive code word for banning abortions."
Good to finally see the mask slip, Bill. You've been cagey about it for so long.
In fact, I've been very pro choice on abortion, have worked to reduce abortions (via sex education and contraceptives), and have opposed the death penalty for the past 50 years, since I was 15.
My many attempts to coalesce and collaborate with abortion prohibitionist to reduce abortions over the decades has been a total waste of time, as abortion prohibitionists (and anti abortion protesters) have never been interested in reducing abortions, but rather their goal has always been to ban abortions and criminalize anyone who performs an abortion.
"but rather their goal has always been to ban abortions and criminalize anyone who performs an abortion."
Well duh, I wonder why.
"It okay, Bill, we'll settle for just a little less serial killing"
Personally, I see zero difference between your abortionist pals and the shooter mentioned above.
Because you're a fanatic. It's a you problem, not an everybody-else problem.
I really don't understand why people have this attitude.
Isn't it easy to understand that if you believe that an unborn child is a human being fully imbued with all the rights of a human, abortion would be wrong in almost every circumstance.
And not just "a bad idea" wrong, but killing an innocent human wrong.
It is a super-simple and quite obvious concept. Why do we have to invent alternative reality motivations that we can straw-man?
This is the fundamental nut of the issue. Some people see a human being. Some do not. Most of those who do not have a really squishy set of rationalizations to get there. Most of those who do see a human are susceptible to uncomfortable edge cases that make this position difficult to sustain.
But the notion that everyone else must conform to your insistence that it is absolutely not a life, even 5 minutes before being born naturally is kinda ludicrous. I get that passions run high, but the only "whoa, that is a non-starter" position is the "any and all abortions right up until delivery" position. Almost nobody supports that.
"Isn’t it easy to understand that if you believe that an unborn child is a human being fully imbued with all the rights of a human, abortion would be wrong in almost every circumstance."
Do I understand how someone who believes that life begins at conception would believe that abortion is murder? Yes. That's easy to understand.
Do I understand calling people murderers or passing legislation based on superstition and fantasy? No, I don't. Any more than I would understand someone feeling justified in keeping me from sitting down in a chair because there is a ghost sitting there already. Their beliefs can guide their actions, not mine.
The first step is to actually prove that a fertilized egg (or any version of a pre-viable fetus) is a person. Not say you believe it. Prove it so that a reasonable person would see it as the most reasonable position to hold. Only 15% of people believe life begins at conception, so anti-abortionists have a long way to go.
If you can't do that, you're just like anyone who believes in ghosts or auras or aliens or a flat earth. You can't project your belief beyond yourself because it has no basis in fact.
The workaround that anti-abortionists use is to claim that a potential human is equivelent to an actual human. And not even in a reasonable way. A fertilized egg only has a 27% chance of becoming a living human. But anti-abortionists want it to be treated like it's 100%. That is just insane.
"Most of those who do not have a really squishy set of rationalizations to get there."
Not really. It's simple: can a fetus survive outside the womb? If not, it isn't a person (or alive or a human or a child or a baby or whatever other term you want to use). Viability is a simple, understandable, and reasonable concept, no matter how hard anti-abortionists try to claim it isn't.
The squishiness is all on the anti-abortionist side. When you try to claim that the potential of something maybe, possibly happening in the future needs to be treated like an absolute certainty today? That's squshy enough to make a jellyfish look firm.
"Most of those who do see a human are susceptible to uncomfortable edge cases that make this position difficult to sustain."
And the uncomfortable reality that any fetus before 21 weeks has a zero chance of living outside the womb. That's not an "edge case". That's reality.
You want to discuss the range between the earliest a fetus has ever survived (21 weeks) and the point where more than 50% of fetuses survive (26 weeks)? Great, that's a reasonable discussion about the earliest point where life can be assumed.
"But the notion that everyone else must conform to your insistence that it is absolutely not a life,"
No one else has to conform to my belief. I'm not trying to force my belief on people who don't share it. Anti-abortionists do. And are. And will. And cannot be trusted to leave others to their own choices.
Yeah, you are just wrong about that. "It cannot survive by itself" is every bit as arbitrary as "when ther is a heartbeat" or "when it can recognize itself in a mirror."
Your idea is actually a good compromise. It is something many could probably live with.
But don't pretend that it has any moral consistency at all.
That doctrine leads to all sorts of evil places. You are making an entirely practical argument that has zero logical consistency and no application beyond abortion.
Care to apply your standard to any other healthcare situation? A guy without a kidney cannot survive without dialysis. Is he no longer a human being because he cannot survive independently? Yeah, you don't want to follow your logic train anywhere and will be forced to do backflips to distinguish why "this is different".
Despite the passion of the position, it is not scientific. It is not an extensible statement of the human condition.
It is simply a compromise position that doesn't even survive advances in science.
"Viability" is a moving goalpost. It has already moved backwards by months. At some point "viability outside the womb" will become "the moment of conception" because we will have developed the ability to nurture a fetus from blastocyst to completed development in a scientific contraption.
There is no answer to this that does not creat compromises and negative consequences.
““It cannot survive by itself” is every bit as arbitrary”
Would you admit it’s not arbitrary if I said, “It doesn’t have the mental activity necessary to maintain and regulate the body, nor functioning lungs to provide oxygen, nor can it develop them on its own.”? Because there are other physical deficiencies that have prevented every fetus, save one, from surviving before 21 weeks, but those two are the biggies.
Sorry, I had to change my niece's diaper and watch Cocomelon. Again. And again. To continue:
“But don’t pretend that it has any moral consistency at all.”
How is it morally inconsistent? The belief that there is a moral element to pre-viability abortion requires a belief that there is a person involved. That is the split.
If you believe a fetus is a person you believe that pre-viability abortion is morally wrong. If you believe that a pre-viability fetus isn't a person, there is no moral element to such an abortion. It's completely morally consistent. The two conclusions are the logical results of the two differrnt premises.
"You are making an entirely practical argument that has zero logical consistency and no application beyond abortion."
I don't see how you get that result. The logic is simple.
Rights, life, personhood, etc.? These are things possessed by an individual. So the baseline for any belief is the existence of two separate individuals.
Before viability, there is no logical way to claim that a fetus is a separate individual. It has the *potential* to eventually become a separate individual but it isn't, yet.
After viability, the moral argument can be made (and it is my personal moral belief) that the fact that a fetus *could* exist as an individual means that it *is*, morally, an individual.
There are those (although not many) who believe that the fetus doesn't become an individual until it has been physically separated from the mother. While I understand the "absolutely certain" element of such a black/white definition, I see it as too simplistic and morally ... murky.
The question (misleadingly labeled by anti-abortionists as "arbitrary") is about when a fetus is viable. Because development occurs at different rates for different pregnancies and the gap between the "start date" (the last day of the last period) and actual fertilization is so uncertain, you can't say 'viability happens X days after the last day of the last period".
That doesn't invalidate the term, which is a common biological term. It is clearly defined and is an excellent way to identify the line between not-an-individual and could-be-an-individual.
But how to identify the exact point of viability for a specific fetus? In terms of abortion it is mostly irrelevant since virtually every abortion happens long before viability. But from a moral perspective it is a significant problem.
This is why I, personally, err on the side of caution. To me, as long as there is a 0% chance that a fetus has ever survived at a specific point I have no moral qualms about an abortion. As soon as a fetus has survived (even only one in history), I feel that the equation has shifted.
There is a point for each person where the moral equation shifts from "moral" to "immoral". For a very small number of people it is fertilization. For a lot more, it is the end of the first trimester. Why? I don't know. But there is a spike at 12-15 weeks. There is another spike at 20-24 weeks (basically viability). There is another small group (smaller than the fertilization cohort, but not by much) for whom the line is live birth. Despite what anti-abortionists say, the first and last cohorts combine for roughly 25% of people and most pro-choice people don't support unrestricted abortion.
Which is the most frustrating thing about anti-abortionists. Their go-to arguments are all intentionally dishonest. Most people don't support complete bans or no restrictions. Three quarters fall in between.
"Is he no longer a human being because he cannot survive independently?"
This, and all of the related "whatabout" arguments, are unrelated to the question about when life *begins*. Once someone is alive, they are forever after then a person (eventually a dead person). They are an individual with rights. The dishonesty of this argument is that it compares a person to a not-yet-a-person. The whole question in abortion is "when does a fertilized egg become a person". This argument pretends that the start line for life can move if someone loses an organ.
The question in the abortion debate isn't about whether or not a person can one day cease to be a person. It is about when personhood begins.
I'm not sure if people are being intentionally dishonest when they make these arguments or if they just don't understand the issues at hand. I prefer to think they are ignorant, not malicious.
"Yeah, you don’t want to follow your logic train anywhere"
I will follow it anywhere. It is logical, internally consistent, and morally defensible. You seem to assume that I haven't thought deeply about the anti-abortion position (and various other beliefs concerning morality). I have and I find it insufficient and unconvincing. I see it as illogical, superstitious mysticism.
"it is not scientific"
Of course it is. There is a point where there isn't an individual. There is another, later point where there is an individual. Therefore there is a point between the two where there is a change in state. What defines an individual and when are those requirements achieved? That's about as scientific a proposition as you can get. It relies on definitions, data, and a rational assessment of the state of the subject *at the moment*. It doesn't require misrepresenting facts or shifting a future event into the present. It doesn't start with a conclusion and work backwards, like anti-abortionists are wont to do.
"“Viability” is a moving goalpost."
Yet another misrepresentation that anti-abortionists like to make to create the illusion of an arbitrary standard.
Viability is a common biological concept defined as "the capacity of a living organism to stay alive, sustain its life, growth, and development.". If new technology arises that moves the point at which viability is attained, that doesn't make the term arbitrary, nor is it "moving goalposts". It means exactly what it means and it is binary: either a fetus has achieved that state or it hasn't. Given the fact that the brain doesn't develop enough to regulate and sustain the body before about 20 weeks and the lungs don't develop enough to breathe until about the same point, we are probably almost atbthe earliest point at which viability can be achieved.
I would also point out that the point you made ("At some point “viability outside the womb” will become “the moment of conception”) is a clear admission that life diesn't begin at conception. If and when the situation changes, come talk to me. But I'll be dead and so will you. In fact, it is unlikely that viability and conception will ever be synonymous. It certainly won't happen any time soon.
"There is no answer to this that does not creat compromises "
I agree. Because of the elements of mysticism, religion, and projection that anti-abortionists bring into the discussion, there is no way that a logical, scientific, emotion-free definition will ever be achieved. The only path forward is compromise, but for compromise to work there has to be trust of the "other side". And anti-abortionists cannot be trusted to accept a compromise. Roe was the definition of a compromise and anti-abortionists hated that compromise with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns. Do you really think they would accept anything even close to Roe?
Cyto, thank you for engaging in a detailed way. Most anti-abortionists aren't willing to do so. I appreciate your willingness to debate.specific points.
Point of order.
You said, "Before viability, there is no logical way to claim that a fetus is a separate individual."
When a human sperm and a human egg get jiggy they form a human zygote. It has separate DNA from the host, therefore it is a separate individual human zygote.
It is a zygote that has a measurable cjance of becoming a human being. It isn't an individual.
I'm assuming you're making the "unique DNA means it is a separate person" argument. But unique DNA doesn't imply life, let alone personhood. A fertilized egg is just a potential life. It isn't an jndividual, it isn't an independent (meaning separate) organism, it doesn't have anything necessary for the sustaining of life. It is 100% potential and that potential is measured at roughly 27%.
If the requirements for independent (again, meaning separate, since anti-abortionists like to play dishonest word games) life haven't been achieved, how can the claim be made that it is a separate individual? If it were actually separate, it wouldn't survive.
"I get that passions run high, but the only “whoa, that is a non-starter” position is the “any and all abortions right up until delivery” position. Almost nobody supports that."
For the record, I'm a viability person. I don't believe that abortion should be legal after a fetus is capable of existing independent of the womb, never mind right before delivery. But that whole "partial birth abortion" thing doesn't happen, unless medically necessary, in real life, so ...
But another non-starter is that life begins at conception. It is equally extreme, equally irrational, and imposes the mystical beliefs of an uninvolved party on someone who hasn't chosen that belief for themselves.
Unless and until the "life begins at conception" premise can be proved, it isn't anyone else's business what a woman chooses to do with her pregnancy.
It certainly isn't the government's business to constrain a person's actions based on a third party's faith. Even if that third parry really, really, really believes life begins at conception.
You cannot make a cogent argument that life beginning at conception is irrational.
It is the only argument with a solid scientific basis.
Clearly a genetically distinct entity is created at that moment and at no other.
There are lots of problems created by drawing the line there, but none of them are due to science or logical consistency.
The other moment that has a strong basis is the moment of birth or first breath. That is historically where the line has been drawn. You mark your life from your date of birth. You "had a baby" on that day as a parent.
Anything in between is a compromise of the competing consequences of choosing one or the other of these two plausible moments in time. Both markers have pretty bad consequences when abortion is on the table.
I don't see any way to resolve it without compromises that have dire negatives for some large group of people.
But these declarations that "my way is right and the others are completely evil" are just plain stupid and unproductive.
Clearly the "abortion is murder" folks have a cogent and logically consistent ethos that cannot be displayed with "you are evil and wrong.". Their position has a strong scientific basis, not just a moral one. In fact, the scientific basis is stronger than the religious basis, if you follow scripture. (Check out the law in numbers. Abortion is clearly not murder in Abrahimic law).
Displaced. Sheesh. Displaced is a perfectly cogent word. No need to autocorrect that one.
A friend of mine calls it automistake. She's not wrong.
I have a really lengthy reply above (the one that ends with a “thank you” to you) that covers pretty much all of this, so I won’t repost I’ll just direct you there.
The one thing I’ll push back on here is “Their position has a strong scientific basis, not just a moral one.”. It has an incredibly weak scientific basis.
Science doesn’t let you claim something that may or may not happen in the future as a 100% true fact today. That is the basis of the “life begins at conception” argument. A fetus as a separate individual is impossible at conception. Surviving long enough to achieve viability (a prerequisite to becoming a separate organism) isn’t even a coin flip. It’s 27%.
So claiming a fertilized egg and a separate individual (aka a baby, in the true meaning of the word) are the same thing is provably false.
Science required facts and proof that are true at the moment being discussed. At the moment of conception, the facts supprting a zygote as a person don’t exist yet. And they won’t for 5-6 months.
When you have to start with “one day this might happen” as your foundational argument, you have a very weak position. Scientifically speaking.
Morally speaking we could go round and round forever. Shit, I’ve thought about this for enough years from enough POVs that I could probably have a debate with myself that would make my head spin.
I have to agree with Bill on the complaint about terminology. Say what you mean and be specific. "Pro-life" is so absurdly broad as to be almost meaningless. Just like "pro-choice". If the debate is about abortion, just say what you think about that.
?
Well they're both marketing labels. You couldn't be "pro-abortion" back in the 80s and 90s (tough you can now) because the position was "safe, legal, and rare." They didn't want to celebrate abortions, just have them on the table as an option. So pro choice is kind of a defensive term, somewhat euphemistic.
Pro-life is the opposite, it's an offensive marketing term. It's there because it implies the other position. "If you're against us, you're against life, you're pro murder." It does fit the stance of its adherents, but it doesn't specifically reference abortion, so "anti-abortion" would be the more accurate term. But it doesn't draw political blood the same way.
A while back I was having an online discussion with a woman of the progressive persuasion about school choice. She was all for it. Thought it was a great idea. Little did I know she equated "choice" with "abortion." She thought I was arguing in favor of school nurses giving abortions without telling the parents.
Soon as she discovered I mean parents having a choice in what school gets their tax dollars and children, she went ballistic.
You have to admit the terminology is a smidge Orwellian. There already is school choice. Many parents and would-be parents take great care in choosing their neighborhoods based on what public school districts they are attached to.
I have the highest suspicions that your plan is not about letting poor parents send their kids to rich districts across town.
Many parents and would-be parents take great care in choosing their neighborhoods based on what public school districts they are attached to.
You mean rich people.
You didn’t like sitting in the same classroom as those Somalis did you.
Do tell me about your grand libertarian plan to help poor people have more options in life.
don't have kids if your poor. Solved your problem corn pop
Tony should at least understand that as a homosexual. They do tend to have more disposable income since they can’t breed.
Are you suggesting he blows a wad often?
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
You are so effing dishonest. Why would anyone engage this idiot.
School choice has been actually enacted and funded by libertarian and conservative groups, specifically targeted at poor minority students many times.
This is something you know.
So pretending that there is some other motivation isn't a mistake. It is a lie. It is an intentional diversion from the truth, which is that progressives have been fighting tooth and nail to keep poor kids and black kids poor and uneducated for decades. Every time one of the programs really does well and demonstrates that it is the schools, not the kids, the far left comes for them with both barrels and shuts the program down.
Why you would shill for those people is beyond me.... but here we are.
Ironic righteous condemnation coming from someone who has admitted that they don’t care about people. But guess what, there are many of us who believe in school choice specifically because that choice helps underprivileged and poor people.
I know it’s tough for you on the left to believe that people actually can care about other people without underlying nefarious motives, but it’s actually true. Says a lot about people like you and the extreme left, doesn’t it?
I would say that your generalization about pro-choice is inaccurate. I, for one, would never have an abortion (or more accurately, since I'm a man, encourage a partner to get an abortion). That's not something I, personally, would ever do. But that's my choice. Other people may choose differently and that is what I support.
A fetus, until well into development, isn't a person. It isn't capable of life. That's just a fact, inconvenient though it is for anti-abortionists. It has a potential to eventually become a living, breathing human being that runs the gamut from about 27% at fertilization to 99.9% right before delivery. And the minimal requirements for life aren't present until 21 weeks, as proved by the fact that that's the earliest a fetus has ever been delivered and survived. Before that it isn't a life because it isn't capable of life.
Pro-choice just recognizes that the only people whose opinion matters are the people involved. Until anti-abortionists get around to actually making a fact-based argument about the point a fetus can reasonably be considered a person (something they have never done) and that convinces more than 15% of their fellow humans, the pro-choice position is the only valid position to take regarding someone else's pregnancy. It doesn't mean pro-abortion, since many pro-choice people don't like abortion. They just, correctly, don't think it's anyone else's business.
This argument is easily destroyed by the counter example of Grandpa Fred. Confined to his bed and ill, he has no independent life. He isn't capable of life without the machines and staff keeping him alive. And he has no capability to develop into an independent life.
The truth is there is no way to answer the question. The only people with an actual rational answer are the "life begins at conception" people.
I have personal experience with this beyond most of you. I know of whence I speak. I have held my stillborn child in my arms. I have lived through 5 additional miscarriages. I know that my own internal compass does not agree that an unborn fetus is the same thing as a human.
But that isn't scientific. And you shouldn't pretend that it is.
There is no line in the sand. There is no right answer here.
There can only be compromise that sacrifices some very important things. No matter what answer we choose, this will be true.
Pretending that anything else is happening is dishonest and won't be productive.
I will refer you to the long reply I made to your post above. It ends with me thanking you.
However, I will refute this common dishonest argument here as well. The abortion discussion is about when life begins. No one has ever said that once personhood is achieved that it can be rescinded. Once a person, always a person (and eventually a dead person).
The question about when life/individuality/personhood/rights begin isn't relevant to Grandpa Joe and his dialysis or Cousin Stevie and his amputation or Johnny Three-Packs and his iron lung. It's not the same subject.
Find me a political slogan that doesn't butcher the language.
Sarcasmic is a Democrat?
This position itself would seem, intentionally or not, dishonest.
Is "Human life is presumed innocent until proven guilty." unclear?
Because I can find "Pro-Lifers" who will openly and honestly foresake the "Pro-Life" moniker in defense of the "proven guilty" clause and I can also find Pro-Choicers who will openly and dishonestly foresake every word of that clause for whatever reason they please including just to disparage people who believe in that statement or advance it, or even no reason at all.
Fine, about Pro-Baby and Pro-Abortion.
Quit trying to twist words!
You mean pro-clump-of-human-cells-with-a-heartbeat and pro-abortion.
I'd agree to "anti-abortion" if the other side agreed to be called "pro-abortion," in the same sense that Jefferson Davis was "pro-slavery."
You know, except all those Catholics who think abortion, death penalty, and euthanasia are all morally wrong.
And what damikesc said in regards to guilt/innocence.
(Personally, unless you were caught in the act, life without parole should be just fine).
This is a great point. As morally suspect as Catholics are, they are consistent in their belief in life being sacred. Pedophilia? Not so much. Rape? Nope. But on the subject of life their moral sense is consistent.
Pedantic bitching about euphemisms is really a compelling substantive argument. Oh, wait...no it isn't.
"Pro-choice" is just as stupid (and often just as hypocritical). But ignoring the substance of someone's position and instead focusing on superficial nonsense like this is also quite stupid.
i'm sure desantis is a christian. being opposed to abortion but support capital punishment is totally in line with his faith and worldview. in the bible god commands capital punishment for murder so if you're a christian you should support the death penalty.
cute - conflating abortion with the death penalty. They are NOT the same issue at all.
As for hypocrisy, you dislike his abortion ban which will SAVE lives, but don't like his take on executions.
Hypocrite much? You clearly do NOT understand the issues.
There’s an ocean of difference between preventing infanticide and executing serial killers and the like. Can you not see that?
Let's just clarify. Pro INNOCENT life!
For the morons to stupid to get it.
Read some of the comments about the 6 year old that shot the teacher.... You'd think retro-active abortion was on the Republican ballot.
It's obvious he's running for POTUS, but the Rookie just made his first mistake. Ultimate penalty needs everyone on board. He should switch tactics to e.g. if DNA confirming evidence is coupled with video evidence etc., in such cases appeals get cut off and you can carry out sentence in less than two years.
I'm split. Yes he could be a better politician. At the same time, it would be nice if, as Michael Ejericto below puts it, Boehm weren't simping for Cruz.
I'm unaware of any DNA or video evidence in the Cruz case and part of DeSantis' point is how absurd that is.
saying that a unanimous vote is required is arbitrary. it's just as valid to only require a simple majority. in my world the death penalty would be mandatory for all murder convictions.
Would your world include erroneous jury verdicts?
I, and Reason, have pointed out before that no system is perfect, and, as you reduce the punitive consequences, judges and juries mete out those consequences more frequently.
The violent crime rate peaked* in the early 90s and has fallen consistently since, in the US. Death sentences peaked in the mid-90s. Executions peaked in the late-90s. Life sentences continue to climb.
Ultimately, unless you give the government mind control powers effective enough to turn people like Charles Manson into somebody like Keanu Reeves, your options are kill them quickly, lock them in a cage until they die, or allow them to murder/arm** civilians and let them kill them for you. No definitive data on which results in the fewest number of dead or dead and imprisoned, let alone dead or imprisoned while innocent. Pretty sure our current system is on the more expensive side and the anti-execution and pro-execution (indirectly, BOAF SIDEZ!) are responsible. My personal preference would be more of the 3rd option, but that’s not on the table (again, both sides but one side a little more).
*Supposedly, given recent shifts in arrests, charging, and reporting, it’s hard tell year-to-year.
** Or just 'allow to be armed'.
Violent crime normally peaks when economy is doing poorly. I suspect that our post 2020/COVID world is not normal.
So... back to the choices - locked up for life, executed, or let go free....
I'm OK with locked up for life (even OK with compassionate release if properly applied). The other 2 don't seem tenable.
BTW, Charles Manson didn't kill anyone... (as far as we know) His followers did. My understanding Atkins, who claimed to have kill Sharon Tate, implicated Manson by talking to a cell mate - who then spilled the beans on the Manson family. So... Manson wasn't at the Tate's house, no one implicated him as giving orders to kill anyone - I think Atkins, after police interrogation finally did implicate Manson. Much much later Tex Watson implicated Manson by effecting claiming Manson brain washed him.
So... assuming my facts are correct, did Manson deserve the death penalty or was he framed by the system?
Violent crime normally peaks when economy is doing poorly. I suspect that our post 2020/COVID world is not normal.
The 90s were not a spike, dumbass, they're the peak since uniform crime reporting began 50 yrs. ago and crime would have to more than double in order to reach that peak. Further, unless you're making some absolutely retarded argument like "We should execute/imprison fewer people when the economy is poor and more when it's better.", it has fuck all to do with the issue.
I’m OK with locked up for life (even OK with compassionate release if properly applied). The other 2 don’t seem tenable.
Funny how you choose the most objectively expensive option and then declare the others to be untenable. Especially since the first and last options intrinsically preceded and got us to where we are today. Almost like you aren’t arguing from logic, objective fact, or truth and just starting with an assumption and working backwards.
BTW, I know objective truths and facts are difficult for you, but I didn’t say Charles Manson killed anyone. I said, in order to be in any way close-ended (like executions) and cost effective (like not having prisons or a criminal judiciary), the system would have to be able to effectively convert Charles Manson into Keanu Reeves. *If* the government/judiciary could simply push a button and do that, it would almost certainly be more efficient and humane than killing him or setting him free (*or* jailing him for life *or* going through several appeals *and then* executing him, etc., etc., etc.). However, then you have to contend with a government that can, at the push of a button, make pretty much anyone behave the way they want them to behave and the costs will be higher *subjectively*.
1st degree, 2nd, 3rd? And which state definition?
Where to draw the line? Was it an accident or was it reckless?
You catch a guy raping your daughter and you end up beating him to death... Way beyond what is necessary to stop and apprehend - that would be murder. But in the heat of the moment....
Blindly following policy, or mandatory sentencing takes the brains out of the process.
wow! De Satan drinks the PowerSauce. no state should have the power even unanimously.
Yup.
A lot of libertarian right-leaning people prefer DeSantis to Trump, but that seems to me to be more about persona and demeanor than substance.
There's a bit of an authoritarian bent in DeSantis sometimes. Almost GOPE'ish.
Maybe. He hits back hard against the left. Some people don’t like that. He’s certainly better than anyone the democrats would currently try to install to the presidency.
"He hits back hard against the left. Some people don’t like that."
Oh, I like that bit.
"He’s certainly better than anyone the democrats would currently try to install to the presidency."
Absolutely, even though that's a very low bar.
Don't get me wrong, I still prefer DeSantis to all the Democrats and 99% of the GOPe. But when he says stupid stuff like the above it worries me.
I don’t like everything about him. Or Trump, or anyone really. But I think he would make a better president than almost anyone also who is a feasible candidate in the next few election cycles. And he is clearly and excellent governor.
The people on Florida certainly think so. Given the results of his re election effforts.
And yet the people who make the decisions at Reason think he must be destroyed at all costs.
I wonder why?
Which is a sign he would be a good president.
Why stop at a super majority? Why not a simple majority? Why not execute the defendant if even one juror gets so much as a skeezy vibe from them? Why even let them have lawyers? Have you heard the awful stuff they are accused of? How can you defend someone who
mightprobablydid do that?"Why not execute the defendant if even one juror gets so much as a skeezy vibe from them?"
You beat me to it.
Yeah, seeing a lot of nonsensical hyperbole from you two. You’re like two nuts in a sack.
Why not execute the defendant if even one juror gets so much as a skeezy vibe from them?
It would work out well for Rittenhouse and Zimmerman (at least in the short term). Not sure how well a guy like Sandmann would fare. Ashli Babbitt probably winds up taking a bullet either way.
Yes, this! The most important thing is that all arrested people are convicted. Except people I know. They need rights.
Having watched mock juries, I can report with horror that "They wouldn't have indicted him unless they're sure he's guilty" is a common juror belief. Someone almost always says it. I've even seen a juror talk herself into a (mock) conviction using this argument despite admitting she could not rule out reasonable doubts.
Plenty of people aren’t convicted. I testified at an assault trial against a guy I knew to be guilty. He skated on the charge.
I didn't say all juries convict.
Despite the governor’s description of the jury, FloridaPolitics.com notes that there were three jurors, not just one, who refused to impose the death penalty.
How? How do you get this so factually wrong iteratively by your own narrative of the facts without self-awareness of blatantly injecting ideology?
DeSantis didn’t describe *the* jury, he described *a* jury and, even if he described *the* jury, “Maybe 8 out of 12 have to agree” ACTUALLY FUCKING DESCRIBES *THE* JURY YOU DUMB FUCK!
Some people believe government is misguided, inept, corrupt, wasteful . . . until government wants to kill someone, at which point those people assert that government is effective, efficient, above reproach, and infallible.
Better Americans call those faux libertarians assholes.
True about the justice system and the military.
But not the FBI and the DOJ?
Correct that the faux libertarians here supported the police murder of peacefully protesting on public property Babbitt.
Peacefully?
What about the people who think the government is undeniably effective at killing people, horribly inefficient, and no more or less beyond reproach morally or intellectually than a woman with a dozen or more abortions under her belt (let alone several or multitudes of such women)?
The government needs permission ftom a judge and jury.
The alternative is a lynch mob.
A judge is part of government whereas prosecutors both withhold evidence and lie.
government wants to kill someone, at which point those people assert that government is effective, efficient, above reproach, and infallible.
The 20th century showed up that there is no more efficient and effective killer than a strong central government. Governments really are effective at killing people, I wouldn't put any private person, partnership, co-op, or corporation ahead of them when it comes to their capacity an capability of killing.
And what do we call you Arty? A brain dead Marxist? A wokie retard?
How do you see yourself?
So now Eric Boehm is sinping for Nikolas Cruz.
I cannot help but wonder if Gov. DeSantis is getting a little too out for his own good. I know he has to please a certain base, but he will need more than just that base to get elected. Is he burning bridges that he will later need? It is probably enough to say he supports the death penalty and leave it at that.
Also, interesting bringing this up at with a law enforcement group as a slow police response was cited as contribution to the loss of life at Parkland HS.
One lesson from the last couple elections is that the American people are fine with, and maybe even prefer, Republican politicians, until they cross a certain line of radicalism. DeSantis has set up his campaign opponents with bona fide book banning and other First Amendment assaults so egregious that not even conservative judges are buying them. I agree that it's weird.
Your comment has nothing in common with the truth, or reality. And you better get used to him, he’s likely to be your president. Real soon.
No has ever decided their vote for president based on his death penalty stance and no one ever will.
That would be headline noose of folks started.
It would be a shock.
Really, you might ask Michael Dukakis about that one. Gov. Dukakis's bad debate answer on the death penalty may have cost him the election. It certainly did not help him.
Yes….. Dukakis…… after dark……
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6za7fdFRpo
Here's my thing: I dislike liars.
In order to get on a death penalty jury, you are asked the question "Do you have a moral objection that would prevent you from voting for the death penalty regardless of the circumstance?" If you answer yes to this question, you are not on a death penalty jury.
Now, if you can't give the death penalty to Nicolas Cruz, who can you give it to? Overwhelming evidence, no way that there's somehow the wrong person, and no doubt that the crime itself is especially cruel, heinous, and atrocious. He didn't shoot up the school on accident or on a whim-he had years worth of posts and comments that he wanted to kill a lot of people or shoot up a school. He's a terrible human being, regardless if you're sympathetic toward his claimed mental health issues.
If you're not for the death penalty in this case, then in what circumstances will you vote for the death penalty? If you voted against it, you probably lied to get onto that jury, with the goal of preventing him from being executed.
I'm not really pro death penalty, but I believe there are some people who deserve to be killed. I'd just prefer the death penalty question be handled on a legislative basis, so it can be banned by law instead of people trying to game the various processes.
People can be inconsistent without being mendacious. Just means they haven't thought things through. And face it, how many people really think things through?
You're consistently mendacious, so I'm not exactly sure how you know that.
"I’m not really pro death penalty, but I believe there are some people who deserve to be killed."
Juror, heal thyself. The principled reasons to be against the death penalty, without much consternation, can apply to all defendants.
I think there is potentially an even stronger case when it comes to the worst actors. You seem to think their particular heinousness makes them more worthy of vengeance killing, when I think that shouldn't be part of any legal system at all. I, on the other hand, think it makes them all the more worthy of scientific study.
Vengeance killing? You can call it that. I call it a willful forfeiture of your rights to exist though sufficiently heinous acts. There becomes a point where your greatest value to all of humanity is beneath six feet of earth.
Do I trust the state with that power? Not remotely. But I would not shed a tear if, after the jury rejected the death penalty, he mysteriously managed to trip and fall onto a pile of bullets.
Okay so you're continuing to muddle up your stated principle with half-assed appeals to emotion. I like the law to be clear and rational without room for assholes to maneuver for the purposes of killing people they may just happen not to like for some reason.
You don't have to be an active member of the KKK to be much more easily disposed to death penalizing a black defendant over a white one guilty of a similar crime. These stats alone should take it off the table, especially since there's no good reason for it.
It's not an appeal to emotion at all, I'm coming at it from a logical perspective. The appeal to emotion is the person who talks about the inherent value of a human life that they can't quantify.
Logic is, instead, saying that you can forfeit your rights by infringing upon the rights of others in a sufficiently blatant and terrible manner. If you take all the steps necessary to shoot up a school and kill 17 people-buying a gun, picking a day, taking the gun to school, drawing the gun, firing the gun, continuing to fire the gun-you have lost all your rights to continue using oxygen.
I then have to add a logical caveat that I don't trust the power of the state to execute to come back against the death penalty. That doesn't mean I don't see a moral or ethical argument to be made in favor of the death penalty.
Your argument is not inconsistent, I just differ on the utility of the means. I don't think the state should "punish" anyone, so I certainly don't think it should punish them with death. I think it should concern itself with the cold calculus of restitution, and if anyone's too dangerous to set free, put them in some facility.
The worst of the worst though are too valuable as lab rats to execute. Or maybe the average murderers are more valuable, since they're average.
All I know is that the state snuffing out a life that's already in captivity doesn't serve any social purpose that I can figure.
I can’t think of a single reason to keep someone like Ted Buddy or John Gacy alive.
The question is what's the reason for the state to kill them? Is it a good one, or is it a feeling you have somewhere in your abdomen?
We are fascinated by serial killers yet destroy their brains so cavalierly.
You are nothing if not creepy.
They’re killing machines looking for an opportunity to indulge their thirst for murder? Which is why they were serial murderers in the first place. You probably don’t see an issue with that since you leftists are mostly sociopaths with a myriad of anti social personality disorders yourselves. Including a strong tendency towards paraphilia. Which I suspect I’d highly descriptive of you.
The proof in this is that when out in positions to do so, your kind tend to let dangerous rapists and killers out of confinement to rape and kill again.
Whomst are they going to kill from inside a locked cage?
Plenty of murders in by murderers in prison. They do more than just sodomize each other in there.
How very Dr. Strangelove. We can't have murder in here, this is death row!
Doesn't mean they don't deserve it. May we all avoid getting what we deserve.
This is what jury nullification is for.
"Are you going to do what we want you to do?" is not a valid jury voir dire question.
Disagree on both counts. Jury nullification is only for nullifying the law in the specific case in question, rather distinct from legislation and at various points and various levels in the founding documents, this is obvious and intentional.
Second, nullification aside, the question isn't "Are you going to do what we want you to do?", it's "Do you understand the full ramifications of this situation?" First, as demonstrated by the recent trannie execution (as well as the broader progressive march against executing *anyone*), it's not always clear that a vote of "guilty" unequivocally means an execution one way or the other. Second, and critical to ATMs point, you're still free to vote "not guilty", you should just attest that you don't think the person is "not guilty" just because you don't think they should die/be subjected to the chance of dying.
“Are you going to do what we want you to do?” is not a valid jury voir dire question
And it likely wasn't the question.
There's a significant gulf (hell, a chasm wider than the Grand Canyon) between "are you so fundamentally against the death penalty that you would never consider it as an option" and "are you going to rubber stamp an execution".
This is , without a doubt, the worst thing he's said or done that ive learned about so far.
Like the two hunters being chased by the bear, DeSantis only has to be a tiny bit less performative than Trump to win the nomination.
This man is a stone-cold psychopath. Good thing he has the personality of a cardboard box and a voice like Minnie Mouse and will never be elected president.
You’re confused. Most democrats are stone cold psychopaths. Like you. You’re also most certainly at least a borderline narcissist. We have all heard what you’ve said about what would happen to us if you had your way.
Actually, I, like most Democrats suffer from an oppressive excess of empathy. I even consider my worst enemies like DeSantis as mere victims of some freakish mental illness.
As to narcissism, I'm flattered you think it's only borderline.
You are projecting.
Holy shit, no you don’t. That’s the funniest thing I have read today. You and people on the left don’t remotely suffer from an oppressive excess of empathy. That’s just a false image cloak you use to self-righteously condemn those who don’t sufficiently meet your moralistic standards, which you then parlay into what you believe is justifiable authoritarianism. The parallels you and the left have with previous Christian conservative movements is just jaw dropping at this point. Almost as jaw dropping as your inability to see that you have become that which you despise.
Jesus, the gaslighting that you can engage in is off the fucking charts.
He’a trying to get a rise out of you where you become emotionally engaged.
You’re probably right. The dumb shit he spews really is just high level trolling. I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not just a pathetic troll, but I think you’re right.
Re,ember, they don’t have real emotions. Just hatred and rage.
"self-righteously condemn those who don’t sufficiently meet your moralistic standards"
Have you ever talked to an actual leftist or do you just have them described to you by Ben Shapiro?
Actually, the vast majority of my friends are leftists. That’s why I can explain your behavior so perfectly.
You are literally part of the new moral majority, filled with hate, anger, and judgmentalism. That’s the irony you all can’t see, and it’s actually kind of funny. It’s also why people like Greenwald, Taibbi, Weiss, Tracey, Schellenberger, Maher, and so forth have become so critical of today’s modern left, as it is turning into exactly what they as classical liberals have fought against for a long time.
And no, I don’t listen to Ben Shapiro. I know it’s hard for tribalists like you to understand, but there are people out there like me who actually think for themselves and don’t engage in elementary school levels of political propaganda and societal framing.
But, you have to be cool with the real world to be an independent and critical thinker. I know that’s not your bag. Rather, you just spout intellectually shallow talking point canards and tropes based on false narrative framing because that’s much easier than actually understanding the world and those around you.
I don't think I've been particularly woke here. My beliefs here generally come down to two things:
1) Some liberals do live in a cultural bubble where they are incentivized to adopt the cutting edge of social justice theory and language.
2) This is not as big a problem as anything right-wingers get up to before they even get out of bed in the morning.
In fact, progressive rhetoric, which is essentially an excess of politeness at worst, is weaponized by fascists as a distraction for stupid people. You're not worried that the government is going to jail you for using the wrong language. What really bothers you, I think, is that you feel outmoded and uncool. Observe any of these nosepickers with a podcast when they do their "edgy" humor. They are just as uncomfortable as anyone else who's ever been to a major city. And they're no less moralistic in their requirements on other people's behavior. It's just not a coherent moralism since it's all in service to the Party in the end.
What are Greenwald and Maher's complaint? What do they want? For college Freshman to police their language better? Is that it? Sure sounds like it. Good luck shooting those fish in a barrel.
It's always the right who sends the government to do their bidding on culture and language. Look at Ron DeSantis. The left just wants to be left in peace to navel gaze in universities.
The problem that I have with you is that you clearly don’t understand reality. From restrictions on college campuses, to government interference in social media, to government interference with corporations and businesses, to government imposed school and educational requirements, and then moving into the culture of cancel pursued by the left, the culture of speech suppression pursued by the left, the culture of mass thought conformity pursued by the left all vastly establish that your impression of who you and the left are is completely a false narrative.
You have lost track of what the real world is and instead imparted a conjured bogeymen landscape that you have to fight daily. There’s always a wrong that needs to be righted, even if the wrong is imaginary, which most wrongs pushed by the left are anymore. It plays well in to the adage that the left believes there is a devil around every tree, the right believes that the left is coming for them, and libertarians believe that “they” are coming for us all.
But you and the left play this game like you’re still the outsider fighting evil Republicans who want to impose a theocratic state, when this is so far from reality itself it is almost as absurd as your belief in it. The left wields the vast majority of the power and institutions in this country to silence opposition. It’s become religious on the left with words like “disinformation” and “misinformation” (along with all the identitarian labeling like “racist” and “misogynist) constantly being used to justify authoritarian behavior.
And this concept isn’t unique to the left, it’s literally how any authoritarian action occurs over time no matter the ideology in place. Because, at the end of the day, you go far enough left and far enough right, you run into each other as each side simply wants the power to rule over others.
The sad part, and scariest part, is people like you who blindly ignore this reality and rather pretend that all you want to do is be left alone, which is just gaslighting of the highest order. You advocate for massive societal control and demand societal behavior to conform to your moralistic standards, otherwise you want the power of both the state and public to be brought to bear against transgressors.
The reason the left bothers me so much anymore is they are literally the same as the Christian right was when I was growing up. Just another group demanding authoritarian control to impose its ideas of what proper morals and behavior are.
However, I was never actually worried about the Christian right of old because all I watched was their power slowly diminish until they became a shadow of what they once were. They were never actually a threat because they were a dying breed, not so on the left.
Moreover, at least the Christian right was honest about wanting to rule over people’s lives and decisions. The left constantly obfuscates and gaslights about its actual objectives, as your abortion thread above provides a great example. You claim “that’s not true and you’re an idiot for believing it,” right before you explain that “it’s totally happening and it’s a good thing.” The dishonesty and disingenuousness of the left is just becoming staggering, anymore. I mean, the left can’t even admit who it is and what it wants. It thinks it’s fighting the powers that be, when the left is the powers that be.
As I said before, you and the left have literally become that which you despise. And I assume that’s why the anger, hate, and pure unhappiness in this world seems to be shouldered mostly by those on the left. You have created a world in your own minds that departs greatly from reality and also embodies massive amounts of hysteria, depression, and despair. It has to be an exhausting existence.
But you're not talking about anyone real, you're talking about "the left" as if it's some uniform ideological sect, because that's what FOX News has made you believe exists.
I was trying to explain that I empathize with conservatives. For most of human history, nobody had to be progressive. The world never changed. Only in the last century or two did our species have to contend with rapid social change. And half of any population is going to be less able than average to deal with that. I get it. I've been conservative on select things as well. Held onto the things I was used to and feared the places we were going.
And maybe it's even a good thing for a portion of the population to resist social change. Maybe it serves as a cooling saucer. I don't know. But the problem is it all too easily slides into fascism. Bad actors make you afraid of minorities, not because they're activating a rational idea in your frontal cortex, but because they're activating some chemical surge in your amygdala. But again, it's not like you're a bad person for being weaker than average.
Governments are not in fact enforcing rules for how you can speak. Your peers in your community may be, but that's no different from how it's always been since the evolution of speech and custom themselves. You're just used to the idea that people should wear clothes in public. You're not used to the idea that transgender people exist. I get it. You are free to be weak and incurious. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's only bad when you start using the government to hurt people, which is where this always goes. You're down the road already with your conspiracy theories and war posture.
It's just culture. It evolves in our time. I'm very sorry about that. Rather than take over the government in a pointless effort to control other people's thoughts and behavior, why don't you try not being weak?
You take issue with the way I talk about the left when you talk about the right and everyone else in the same way. C'mon man! You have got to have some level of genuiness to your positions, because this is just getting embarrassing for you. And no, I don't watch Fox News. Ironically, an accusation that literally is the exact thing you just complained that I do about you. You are so intellectually dishonest. You operate in a world of hypocrisy, depravity, and falsity.
And someone who actually understood the world would understand "progress" for the sake of progress is not a positive. Having a side that limits progress and a side that advocates for progress is the best society that you can have. Each checks the other's bad ideas. To believe one side of that equation is comprised of people who are "weaker than average" is just a laughable conclusion. I get it, you are tremendously insecure and need the religious righteousness you gain from tribal politics to feel better about yourself, but it's a falsity that you have created to shield yourself from reality. I mean, your continued need to degrade others about their beliefs and intelligence while constantly having to explain how great you are has to be the biggest giveaway to that.
There are good things about progress and bad things about progress. That's why you have to have multiple perspectives on a matter to flush out the proper course to take. Having one side only control leads to the fascism you allege to hate. Even though the fascism in modern culture is coming from the left, not the right. The only difference is that you have convinced yourself that your type of authoritarianism is good authoritarianism and not the fascism that you claim to fear. The irony also being the you use the term "fascism" not descriptively, but rather as a catchall for those you simply disagree with. Another great marker of groupthink simplicity.
You complain of tyrants, but you advocate for them, though disguised to obfuscate. You complain of people being ignorant, but ignorance is all you profess. You accuse others of being tribal, when every premise you assert is based on false narrative groupthink.
And if you can look at the actions of the DOJ, the Facebook and Twitter files, the actions of congressional threats, the influence the government has asserted over many, many companies, and not see government influence, then you are as naïve as you so cavalierly accuse others of being.
And of course societal discourse is part of that. Hitler didn't come to power simply because the government installed him, he also use the people and societal means to get where he wanted to go. And that's what you and the left do. That's part of the problem. The anger you have with it is the right is fighting back against the culture war started by the left. And ironically, classical liberals are also fighting back against it the left on this as well. That should be actually be a fairly significant tell for you, but you're too steeped in your own false tribal narratives to learn from it.
And it's not that trans people exist, there's really no one who thinks that they don't. But it does provide a good example of your need to create a false narrative/straw man position that you can righteously fight against while giving yourself cover to avoid addressing reality. It's simple deflection because of an inferior mind. That said, the issue isn't that they exist, the issue is the treatment in society and the demands made by groups of people. These issues are much more nuanced and complex than simple propaganda talking points, but such complexity is outside of your wheelhouse. Instead, you paint with false brushes that fit your desired narrative in order to ignore the actual. But , on a side note, the irony on this issue of you and the left not being able to define a woman anymore in order to avoid the illogic of so many of your positions is really quite funny.
And I haven't posited a single conspiracy theory or demanded war about anything. I also have argued against government controlling people's thoughts and behavior (ironically what the left is demanding day after day). As such, I'm not weak, I can actually discuss a topic rather than arguing against what I think people say as opposed to what they do say like you do.
In the end, you refuted nothing of what I said. You argue straw man positions I never take. You project on to others the evils you embrace. And you have to do it all while being condescending and dismissive. You show yourself to be an intellectual lightweight. You show yourself to be terribly insecure. You show yourself to be devoid of self awareness or situational awareness. But most of all, you show yourself to simply be dishonest and disingenuous without the slightest care. You lie with abandon while parroting false context groupthink and see nothing wrong with it. You literally are that which you claim to be against. I actually feel a lot of pity for you, but since you are a sociopath, you wouldn't understand what pity actually is.
Tony, you’re a sociopath. Emotions are something you simulate to manipulate others round you, the democrat party is a magnet for sociopaths like you. In the same way that you claim to be generous to others. Even though studies show that the least philanthropic Americans are leftist atheists.
Do you really believe that you hve an iota of credibility here? Really? The only people that will ever back you up are White Mike, and the pedophile. Even Chemjeff and Sarc tend to slap you down. Which would be embarrassing if you were capable of emotions like shame.
You're such a mindless idiot. Please continue bleating sweet nothings.
Every politician, no matter how high your opinion of them, publicly says something really dumb sometimes. This is one for DeSantis.
This is also one that nobody would hold against DeSantis if he decides to walk it back when he runs for higher office later. I'm not saying he will, but almost nobody would feel betrayed if he comes out later to say he's changed his mind on the issue.
Look at the forums, "Who's opposed to executing Nikolas Cruz?" or "Tell the parents of Sandy Hook that the risk of Nikolas Cruz being killed is too high." turns the BS right around.
I agree with DeSantis. If you can't execute someone like Cruz, who the fuck are you going to execute? Either make the death penalty viable or eliminate it.
You think removing the unanimity requirement will only apply to defendants you deem evil enough?
Most likely.
There's also a considerable vacuum of anti-death penalty thought going on.
It's not "unanimity -> death" being changed to "supermajority -> death". It's "unanimity -> (stay/appeal)*n -> commutation or pardon or death" being changed to "supermajority -> (stay/appeal)*n -> commutation or pardon or death".
everyone convicted of murder should be executed. period.
You do know that a non-zero number of people are falsely convicted of murder every year, right?
So how do you justify killing those people?
Will a "sorry" do it?
Considering the death penalty be abolished, unless we want to emulate China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, this is a terrible take from DeSantis.
Two questions:
1. Did you sleep soundly through all the extrajudicial murders that happened in FL prisons from 2018 to today or did you just wake up because you're really concerned for Cruz? I mean I don't know *for sure* that they all those people murdered by other inmates didn't murder 17 children and were caught in the act, but it seems like, you know, if any one issue of rehabilitation, presumption of innocence, equality before the law, due process/cruel and unusual punishment were really causing you to lose sleep, rather than scoring political points and simping for Cruz, we would've heard from you sooner.
2. China, Iran, and, arguably, Saudi Arabia's governments are all younger than ours, so it would be them emulating us. And really, unless your point was to slur all of Western History and The Enlightenment, it's really more of US emulating the French Revolution and The Wars Of The Three Kingdoms. So, were you just slurring The Enlightenment in favor of Nikolas Cruz, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia or is it really your desire to see us live down to those standards?
I guess I have a third question, for someone parading around under the handle you do, we can all safely assume you, at some level, are willing to look past Kirisute-gomen, right?
So I have to ask this question, if it is wrong for the state to take the life of someone like Nicholas Cruz, why isn't wrong to imprison him for the rest of his nature life? We are well beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt standard and thus there is literally no chance of any evidence coming forth that would prove innocence.
He's going to die under state supervision either way, the difference being either a short drop and a sudden stop vs letting nature take its course over 50-70 years. And in the later case, he's going to be housed, fed, and treated under tax payer expense, which obviously includes the families of his victims. Is it really moral to force the victims and their families to fund the existence of the one who took so much from them? Especially when there is no doubt that he did it?
Perhaps if he had been convicted using your new "well beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt standard", as opposed to the usual "beyond a reasonable doubt standard", we might consider applying the death penalty only to such persons.
DeSantis didn't propose changing the standard of proof, though. All he suggested was reducing the number of jurors required to impose the death penalty--and that applies to all persons, not just the Nicholas Cruzes.
Move the reply button
But there is no doubt that Cruz did it. And my comment was directed to those against the death penalty.
I heard that DeSantis has also proposed that all death row prisoners be executed by a firing squad where the shooters pay the state a hefty fee, say $250.000 to shoot at live people. This will raise millions to cover the huge costs of keeping criminals on death Row.
Death row would be so much cheaper if the condemned would be executed in a timely manner. Maybe three years instead three decades.
If wishes were horses...
Aa of 2017 there were 15,787 executions in the US from 1700 on. https://time.com/82375/every-execution-in-u-s-history-in-a-single-chart/the highest number in any one year was in 1935 when there were 197. Suffice it to say that the number of homicides and convictions for capital offenses was considerably more. It seems that less than 1% of those who DeSantis would like to see executed ever would be and ever were in the history of the United States. Who lives and who dies after conviction of capital murder is more about luck than the crime. That’s no way to decide on a life an death issue.
As I pointed out to Hattori Hanzo above, from the time of Cruz's arrest to now, approximately 100 FL inmates have died of murder and nobody lost any sleep over any of those extrajudicial killings by unequivocal murderers. It wasn't until DeSantis piped up about Cruz (presumably) that, suddenly, everybody had a problem with a slightly higher probability of fully judicial killings.
I'm also against extrajudicial killings in prisons, as I think most people are. The group most likely to be nonplussed about it is probably the same group DeSantis is appealing to with his remarks.
Concern trolling much?
Concern trolling much?
So don’t be too concerned about the 100ish *actual* extrajudicial killings and instead, focus on the potential killing of the one token person that nobody anywhere, save three people, disagrees is guilty. Some animals, like Cruz, are more equal than others, got it.
The whole fucking article is concern trolling. I’m sympathetic to the articles/stories for people who weren’t even in the room during the murder convicted under the felony murder rule. This is not that. So, don’t want shit? Don’t start shit.
That is an interesting twist on the argument. I can't agree with it though. If only a tiny percent of people who murder get the death penalty, it is prima facia evidence that it is reserved for only the most egregious cases.
it is not, in fact, reserved for those cases. But that is the initial indicator.
Plus "other people deserved it too" is not a good argument.
I stand on "killing is wrong" as a starting place and pretty much stay there. "they didn't deserve it" is a loser. Plenty of people deserve much worse than a merciful death.
It isn't fair is a loser. Lots of people living who deserved to die is not a winning argument.
I prefer to stick with "the death penalty is wrong, full stop". All of these other arguments can be answered with "we will make it better".
Murder in his heart of hearts.
Which was, is, and always will be a ridiculously ahistorical and atextual interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.
The first ridiculous idea is that the standard punishment for all felonies in common law at the time of the adoption of the Eighth Amendment can be "cruel and unusual" as Constitutional matter as a punishment for any felony.
The second ridiculous idea is that a punishment's status as "cruel and unusual" is dependent on the sentencing procedure. It is entirely possible for an imposition of an otherwise-lawful punishment to be a violation of the due process of law, but an otherwise-lawful punishment does not metamorphose in character to "cruel and unusual" because a non-unanimous jury recommend the sentence, or the judge has unilateral discretion over the sentence, or because the legislature made it a mandatory sentence.
"ahistorical . . . interpretation of the Eighth Amendment"
I hope all modern interpretations of the 8th are ahistorical, as that would indicate that American society is evolving in a positive direction.
The beauty of such words as "cruel and unusual" is that they are so unspecific that they can hitch a ride alongside social moral progress, and we aren't stuck applying the punishments from a time when runaway slaves and witches were the worst offenders.
It's sort of how you people interpret "arms" not to refer only to shitty muskets.
If you actually believed in social evolution and social moral progress, you'd trust legislators elected by that evolving, progressing society to legislate changes in punishments, not glory in small cadres of appointed oligarchs dictating changes.
I can't disagree with that.
Social Justice is not social and never justice. social moral progress has been negativing since the 1930's and rapidly since the 1960s. Bolsheviks/Cultural Marxists have infected every sector and aspect of our Republic.
You should cite Mein Kampf when you quote directly from it.
Your takes are always so useless. If you are going to shill, why don't you read good progressive writers and crip their most cogent arguments?
Can always tell how good an argument is by how many “ridiculous”es there are. This must be a really great post
#dystopiawatch
Troytsky was the here of the bolshie left of America. Every policy position the modern democratic party takes today is in line of Troytsky. Every foreign policy obsession they have has to do with Troytksy not taking over the Soviet Union. Ukraine..Troytsky. Trannies sexsual mutilating kids..Troytsky. Attack on European American Christians for being "white" Troytsky. Attack on the Bill of Rights..Troytsky. Iraq war..Troytsky. Libya..Troystky. Cultural Marxism..Troytsky...he is the alpha and omega of the left. Understand this and you will understand the cabal that has destroyed our republic.
"We can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this,"
- Says one person trying to derail this
Lest we think this is all about Cruz:
Just think, with a couple of dissenting jurors, these men, both of whom provably killed fewer people than Nikolas Cruz (maybe combined), could be enjoying further rehabilitation in the FL penal system!
Why do you think a blatant appeal to emotion is an effective weapon to employ here? By and large, the kinds of people most susceptible to such appeals already agree with you. So why do it?
You seem to have me confused with someone else. Which exact emotion did I appeal to? The article only mentions Cruz. The people opposed to him being executed are openly worried that innocent people might die. Worry or not, that’s a false narrative. The option isn’t “nobody dies”.
Don’t execute Bowles and Long out of pity or vengeance. Execute them the way you would destroy a defective toaster that caught fire and burned down a nightclub or women’s shelter. The way you would execute Hermann Göring or Saddam Hussein. Whether you subject them to lethal injection tomorrow or keep them to rot for 5+ decades until they die, they’re going to die either way, regardless of how you feel.
Or are you suggesting we keep the toaster(s) in perpetuity because you have a feeling that somebody, somewhere might be able to rehabilitate it? That, somehow, if we lock up enough people long enough without killing any of them, people will stop dying and/or committing murder?
To often there is a Perry Mason type that thinks they are smarter than everyone else, or is totally against the death penalty and lied during voir dire just to derail the process. I don't have a problem with 11 to one.
I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but if we do have the death penalty it needs to be a very high bar.
Even though Ron DeSantis is a reasonably good governor, he is is wrong on this issue.
The issue isn’t whether the bar is high and the assertion of “it needs to be a high bar” is a false portrayal, a masking of “the bar should always be higher” behind an ignorant and/or selectively narrow zeitgeist.
He’s wrong on the issue as framed by Boehm’s “the bar should always be higher” narrative and, per the broader progressive narrative, he always will be. Even if nobody died anywhwere, ever and DeSantis said something like “Private businesses should be free to determine who does and doesn’t use their bathrooms.” he would still be setting the low bar. But he’s not wrong that Cruz should be executed for his crime.
“If just one juror vetoes it, then you end up not getting the sentence,” DeSantis said during remarks delivered at the Florida Sheriffs Association Conference. “Maybe eight out of 12 have to agree, or something, but we can’t be in a situation where one person can just derail this.
Seriously? I guess DeSantis really likes his DeathSantis nickname. He’s just trying to adjust the narrative. Also, fuck you DeSantis. Don’t make the death penalty even more likely to be abused, and then abolished. It should be an extraordinary punishment that requires extremely clear evidence and unanimous verdicts, absolutely.
The turd in question is someone that I would think clearly deserves the death penalty, but that's just my opinion.
I prefer ‘DeSanta Claus’. And I’m happy he brings such exquisite agony to the left.
There have been 65 exonerations of convicted Florida felons, including 8 who were on death row at the time exonerated. That's with the current unanimous jury rule and incredibly high criteria for exoneration.
But sure, what we need to do is make it easier to convict and kill whichever person got arrested. It's Judge Dredd politics.
Sounds reasonable to me. Serious criminals need to have their executions expedited and not burden the taxpayer for decades in prison. It's a fact that recidivists commit most of the crimes, so anything that takes them out of the loop sooner is good for society. Is it fool-proof? Absolutely not, but nothing created by Man is. Your Judeo-Christian ethics bore me.
PLEASE KILL ME, GOVERNMENT FREEODM DADDY!!!!
serious question:
Who is calling the shots? Who is funding the daily hit pieces on DeSantis?
I happen to be on the "anti DeSantis" side on this issue... but why does the Libertarian magazine have a clear obsession with one of the leading Republican contenders... and in an entirely unhealthy way? This is clearly not just an "editorial decision". It is beyond doubt that someone with clout beyond an editor has decided that the voice of Reason must be marshaled to stop DeSantis from ascending to the presidency at all costs.
We have seen this before.
it did not go well.
So who is calling this shot? What did they say?
Why DeSantis?
We have a president who has been caught red-handed taking bribes, framing someone for a crime, and now there is good evidence that he was passing secrets to Ukraine Junior. And there have been more hit pieces on DeSantis this year than there have been mildly negative articles about Biden in his entire run as president.
This is not normal.
I get that Reason is not an independent voice. I get that someone calls the shots.
But why would he have a bee in his bonnet about a republican?
Is this the kids? Someone else?
This makes no sense at all, not from a libertarian point of view. No libertarian would choose the Biden administration over the worst version of a putative DeSantis administration.
Does anyone at reason have enough courage to go public with what the hell is going on there?
I have been a Reason reader and sometimes subscriber since the 90s. I have never seen an obsession with a political party and personalities like this. First Trump needed to be destroyed. Now DeSantis.
Meanwhile, people that you know very well are running articles about the FBI, CIA and a bunch of other agencies controlling the marketplace of ideas -- and you guys are worried about the "freedom" to push "queer theory" into a high school history class about black people in america. Aren't you embarrassed to show your face when Bari Weiss walks by? Doesn't Matt Taibbi's work make you flush with shame as you pen these sophomoric hit pieces?
Because he's an authoritarian shitweasel of parodic proportions and this magazine is supposed to be pro-freedom.
All you seem to care about is scoring Sunday talk show points for Republicans. Get better. Be better.
That changed after the state Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that "the jury's recommended sentence of death must be unanimous" in order to comport with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
That ruling is absurd. It can be argued if the death penalty is, or is not, "cruel and unusual". There is not rational basis to claim unanimity of the jury makes it any more, or less, "cruel and unusual".