Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 252: Voiding Our Special Relationship

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm generally opposed to anything that cites "justice" as a motivation in these kinds of situations, which is usually just a dressed up way of saying "revenge".

Legal punishment should be used to act as an effective deterrent and to protect society from dangerous criminals, and it shouldn't go an inch farther than what's necessary for those aims.
---

jakyl: hey maybe they shouldn't have executed this guy after he spent 20 non-violent years in prison
corrik: oMg YoU'rE dEfEnDiNg HiM

---

Also I think its kind of twisted that you think its sad that anyone would defend another persons right to live
---

i know i post that judge dredd "LAW!" meme a lot but corrik literally seems to be as morally nuanced as that character

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also I think its kind of twisted that you think its sad that anyone would defend another persons right to live

Pretty sure it said he killed a freaking little girl who will never get to live her life. Who could have possibly done anything. Maybe that is the little girl who cures cancer, maybe she is a psychopath, maybe she is a mother of 7 children. It doesn't matter. Her entire potential and life was snuffed out before even being given a chance to live.

Society weighed the atrocities and the consequences and made the decision it felt was just. Yes, I feel it is sad to defend the propensity to live for that society determined the death penalty best was suited, especially considering the crime and victims.

---

spoilers: american society frequently has fucking terrible opinions on what's good and just (see: electing donald trump as president)

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

spoilers: american society frequently has fucking terrible opinions on what's good and just (see: electing donald trump as president)

Sorry the world cannot be the way you want it personally. One day maybe the world will bow down to your will. Until then, law and order deemed by the government that the populace has granted power will be followed.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, I feel it is sad to defend the propensity to live for that society determined the death penalty best was suited, especially considering the crime and victims.

Why?

Also related question for Constitutional scholars

How do we reconcile our Declaration of Independence concept that all people have inalienable rights to life and liberty when we also sanction executions and imprisonments?
---

I imagine Corrik watches a show like The Walking Dead and bemoans that our supposed heroes dont continue to follow all of their local ordinances
---

Bro did Daryl really just jaywalk?? How am I supposed to root for this guy?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Sorry the world cannot be the way you want it personally. One day maybe the world will bow down to your will. Until then, law and order deemed by the government that the populace has granted power will be followed.

the government draws power from the populace but individual opinions mean nothing

interesting philosophy

---

Corrik7 posted...

Sorry the world cannot be the way you want it personally. One day maybe the world will bow down to your will. Until then, law and order deemed by the government that the populace has granted power will be followed.

thanks for reminding me that i don't rule the world this really added a lot to the topic

---

I wonder how many of you think if you personally made all the decisions for America yourself that the country would be a better place. Honestly.

---

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1204889142594875393

Always a tweet

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/us/death-penalty-family-plea-daniel-lewis-lee/index.html

Where do we all stand on a situation like this? I expect it might not break down along usual ideological lines

I'm against the death penalty and don't believe the state should be in the business of executing people. FWIW, I also think life in prison is the "harsher" penalty so even to the extent that people argue in favor of the death penalty out of revenge it rings hollow to me because in my view it's the easy way out for the criminal in question.

So really that belief of mine would apply here without even analyzing this case specifically, but doing that... yeah, the prosecution of this case seems motivated more by revenge than anything else - and by the part of the government no less. Jury returned a life sentence for the alleged ringleader of the crime and the prosecution intended to seek the same sentence here until DOJ overruled the Arkansas prosecutors in charge of the case and told them to seek the death penalty.

It really gets fishy when you get to the part where two federal judges cast doubt on whether a death sentence would have been returned had the prosecution not used discredited science to cast him as someone who would be a psychopath in prison and honestly this one is more key to me - misled the jury about a prior murder that had been falsely attributed to him to argue he would be a danger in prison. The judges couldn't do anything because of procedural limitations however.

I'm curious as to what exactly those procedural limitations are because honestly? The way it reads there is that the judges had cause to believe the death penalty was handed down on discredited science and misleading information given by the prosecution but are restricted from acting because of some technicality so I'd have really appreciated some more detail on the procedural limitations in play here.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also related question for Constitutional scholars

How do we reconcile our Declaration of Independence concept that all people have inalienable rights to life and liberty when we also sanction executions and imprisonments?

not a constitutional scholar

but the easy answer would appear to be that the declaration of independence has nothing to do with the framework of the laws here

so you don't have to reconcile them at all you can just ignore the declaration of independence when deciding legal matters. the question of why do they seem to differ would be one posed instead to historians/biographers of the founders and authors on why they did that

---

Corrik7 posted...

I wonder how many of you think if you personally made all the decisions for America yourself that the country would be a better place. Honestly.

You dont make all the decisions but it already conforms 100% to your worldview
---

xp1337 posted...

I'm curious as to what exactly those procedural limitations are because honestly? The way it reads there is that the judges had cause to believe the death penalty was handed down on discredited science and misleading information given by the prosecution but are restricted from acting because of some technicality so I'd have really appreciated some more detail on the procedural limitations in play here.

I wondered that as well. Potentially because its an interstate crime? Killing someone from one state in another state?
---

Corrik, it is reasonable and internally consistent to both believe in a system which bases decision making on the collective opinions of society and to disagree with a particular decision reached by that system.
---

https://twitter.com/icegov/status/1204562328135458816

No comment necessary
---

Sinclair is dropping Boris Epshteyn and its "must run" political commentary spots:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/sinclair-drops-boris-epshteyn-other-political-analysts-n1099796

They say they want to refocus with an expansion of local investigative journalism. In theory this seems like a good thing. In practice, Sinclair has lost any benefit of the doubt from me and I'm bracing for them going the Project Veritas route of "journalism."

---

Corrik7 posted...

I wonder how many of you think if you personally made all the decisions for America yourself that the country would be a better place. Honestly.

So you believe every decision made for America is the best one? Do you honestly have no criticisms or do you believe its not your place to criticize it?

---

How are you defining "better" ?

The average happiness level (assuming this could be empirically measured) being higher for all citizens?
The GDP being higher?
The number of people who disagree with government policy being lowered?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So you believe every decision made for America is the best one? Do you honestly have no criticisms or do you believe its not your place to criticize it?

He believes we should respect every decision made for America, for sure.
---

xp1337 posted...

so you don't have to reconcile them at all you can just ignore the declaration of independence when deciding legal matters. the question of why do they seem to differ would be one posed instead to historians/biographers of the founders and authors on why they did that

the short answer is that "all men" is a much more narrow concept than it sounds

---

Man, I never realized how hot "women of color" were until I followed Steve Sailer on Twitter!

https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1204710187979829252

The future looks bright for young, light-skinned actresses who have the DNA test to prove that they officially qualify as oppressed minorities!

---

I personally find life in prison to be a much more depressing sentence than death.

---

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/ndaa-defense-bill-passes-space-force/index.html

They should impeach more often if it is going to get more of Trump's legislation finally through.

---

You didn't actually get a Space Force, if that is what you think you are celebrating.

---

red13n posted...

You didn't actually get a Space Force, if that is what you think you are celebrating.

Family leave for federal workers as Ivanka has been trying to get for a while now.

---

Paid family leave for all federal workers for what appears to just be calling the part of the Air Force that already did these things the Space Force seems like a good trade to me.

---

xp1337 posted...

not a constitutional scholar

but the easy answer would appear to be that the declaration of independence has nothing to do with the framework of the laws here

so you don't have to reconcile them at all you can just ignore the declaration of independence when deciding legal matters. the question of why do they seem to differ would be one posed instead to historians/biographers of the founders and authors on why they did that

Legally speaking, the Declaration of Independence is not binding law in the United States. It might possibly have been law under the Articles of Confederation, but the passage of the current Constitution effectively overthrew the United States of the Articles in a bloodless revolution.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Legally speaking, the Declaration of Independence is not binding law in the United States. It might possibly have been law under the Articles of Confederation, but the passage of the current Constitution effectively overthrew the United States of the Articles in a bloodless revolution.

I know its not legally binding.

I just wonder how the CONCEPT was reconciled with the realities of running a nation, even putting aside slavery and patriarchy.

Did they not really mean it?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know its not legally binding.

I just wonder how the CONCEPT was reconciled with the realities of running a nation, even putting aside slavery and patriarchy.

Did they not really mean it?

I'm also not a constitutional scholar but it makes sense if you assume the founders only cared about human rights and liberties as far as they could be used to build a strong Republic.

---

TV Ad spending by the Dems through week of 12/17: https://twitter.com/DavidWright_CNN/status/1204773240368979969

In part

Bloomberg -$100.6m
Steyer - $81.2m
Sanders - $8.6m
Buttigieg - $7.2m
Biden - $2.2m
Warren - $1.9m

jesus

Also in fun news. 43% of Republicans now say they are satisfied with the cost of healthcare, up from 26% in 2018 per Gallup. Health insurance costs are up 20.2% this past year per CPI.

https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/1204843755968307201

---

KY Governor and all around piece of shit Matt Bevin is pardoning a ton of murderers and a child rapist, including one murderer who had only served two years and whose brother had hosted a fundraiser for Bevin:

https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1204932074085457923?s=21

This is so fucking gross.

---

what the fuck

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know its not legally binding.

I just wonder how the CONCEPT was reconciled with the realities of running a nation, even putting aside slavery and patriarchy.

Did they not really mean it?

Of course not. The Declaration of Independence aside from the preamble is basically a set of articles of impeachment against the King. And they are some extremely flimsy ones.....somehow they charge him with both supporting and opposing slavery, in addition to doing things perfectly within a king's right to do, like vetoing bills and summoning legislatures to meet at places of his choosing.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

KY Governor and all around piece of shit Matt Bevin is pardoning a ton of murderers and a child rapist, including one murderer who had only served two years and whose brother had hosted a fundraiser for Bevin:

https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1204932074085457923?s=21

This is so fucking gross.

Maybe they were rehabilitated... lmfao *rolls eyes*

---

This is a few days old, but Biden said some dumb shit.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/473522-biden-no-party-should-have-too-much-power

My favorite part of this is him bragging about making deals on Capitol Hill as VP, ignoring that less bills were passed in that period than the history of ever.

---

Biden made that comment right as I was thinking I'd prefer him to Buttigieg if it came down to those two. It's like they're in a contest to annoy me over to the other side and keep raising the other. >_>

---

He's correct; an unchecked political party is bad regardless of their intent. Ideas need to be challenged.

The current GOP, however, is beyond saving; it needs to completely implode before it can be rebuilt as a sane opposition party.

---

Well, yeah, that's the key point! Biden still seems to be treating Trump as an aberration and that the GOP will go back to "normal" after he's gone and work together with him.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know its not legally binding.

I just wonder how the CONCEPT was reconciled with the realities of running a nation, even putting aside slavery and patriarchy.

Did they not really mean it?

Most people, without significant convincing, only believe in things to the extent that it benefits them and people they approve of. Maybe all people, actually. I think even the most genuinely principled people have moments where they have to convince themselves it's actually okay to extend the ideas they support to people they dislike (or like, for issues of justice).

---

xp1337 posted...

Well, yeah, that's the key point! Biden still seems to be treating Trump as an aberration and that the GOP will go back to "normal" after he's gone and work together with him.

He had a close-up view of "normal" during the 8 years he was VP.

I legitimately don't understand why Joe Biden wants to be president. All politicians want power to some extent, but Biden manages to come across like he's running because he has nothing better to do. He acts less like he wants to be President and more that he just thinks he should be.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

He's correct; an unchecked political party is bad regardless of their intent. Ideas need to be challenged.

The current GOP, however, is beyond saving; it needs to completely implode before it can be rebuilt as a sane opposition party.

That's how I feel about the Democrats!

---

xp1337 posted...

TV Ad spending by the Dems through week of 12/17: https://twitter.com/DavidWright_CNN/status/1204773240368979969

In part

jesus

Also in fun news. 43% of Republicans now say they are satisfied with the cost of healthcare, up from 26% in 2018 per Gallup. Health insurance costs are up 20.2% this past year per CPI.

https://twitter.com/andrewperezdc/status/1204843755968307201

We are getting a Bloomberg ad on the TV every goddamn hour here. It is fucking ridiculous.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know its not legally binding.

I just wonder how the CONCEPT was reconciled with the realities of running a nation, even putting aside slavery and patriarchy.

Did they not really mean it?

Ok, to address this substantively, yes they meant it but not in they way you mean it. They meant that each person was born with a right to life, but he could still forfeit it by committing murder or treason or other capital crimes. Same with liberty. The pursuit of happiness is maybe an absolute right.

---

xp1337 posted...

Biden made that comment right as I was thinking I'd prefer him to Buttigieg if it came down to those two. It's like they're in a contest to annoy me over to the other side and keep raising the other. >_>

It's funny you say this because Biden has leaped Buttigieg recently for me too. I'm at least fairly confident Biden means the rambling stuff he's saying and I don't know what Buttigieg might flip on next. Plus I'm more confident Biden could somehow beat Trump between those two so if we're getting "similar" policies I'll go for the guy that has like a 40% shot at winning over the dude with a 10% shot.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Ok, to address this substantively, yes they meant it but not in they way you mean it. They meant that each person was born with a right to life, but he could still forfeit it by committing murder or treason or other capital crimes. Same with liberty. The pursuit of happiness is maybe an absolute right.

Thats not really inalienable though

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain conditional rights
---