- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
Summary
President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 federal death row inmates to life without parole, sparing all but three convicted of high-profile mass killings.
Biden framed the decision as a moral stance against federal executions, citing his legal background and belief in the dignity of human life.
Donald Trump criticized the move as senseless, vowing to reinstate the death penalty.
Reactions were mixed: some victims’ families condemned Biden, while others supported his decision. Human rights groups praised it as a significant step against capital punishment.
Did you just gloss over “then you need to change the law”? Maybe even my entire comment?
At no point did I ever say laws should guide our morals. I’m saying you don’t codify laws you don’t intend on following. Your slavery example is an irrelevant cheap shot that we both know does not reflect my position. Hell it’s not even relevant to yours. It’s an entirely different discussion on whether laws = morality when it should be our values informing our laws, none of which is the discussion af hand.
You said murder should be illegal but that you still condone it in some cases as you believe it’s the only effective solution. This is the discussion at hand. If you have special carve outs where you’re allowed to ignore the law based on your personal whims then the law is meaningless. You must alter the law or your stance, your two stated views are contradictory.
No I did not gloss over that. I’m not sure how you could miss my point that much.
I think my example is entirely relevant. The reason I sometimes condone murder is when I don’t find it morally wrong, so obviously that’s also what the discussion is about.
You’re whole argument about not being able to condone a criminal act without having to change the laws makes very little sense to me.
I didn’t miss your point, you’re talking at cross purpose