Virginia has abolished the death penalty

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I haven't found a topic about this yet, only a mention in the Virginia to be First Southern State with its own Voting Rights Act thread. If I've merely overseen the relevant thread, please feel free to merge!

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1374799233568677888
https://twitter.com/GovernorVA/status/1374824962985496580


Without the death penalty: 🟢 Capital punishment repealed, never instituted, or struck down as unconstitutional (23)
With the death penalty: 🔵 Capital punishment in statute, but executions formally suspended (7) | 🟡 Capital punishment in statute, but no executions within the last 10 years (6) | 🟣 Capital punishment in statute, but executions informally suspended (1) | 🔴 Executions recently carried out (13).

[TDAS04]

Good news.

[emailking]

I don't know what the legend alongside the map is supposed to mean. 🤷🏻

I think it means the Federal Government has executed civilians recently, and the military has not executed anyone in the last 10 years.

[Tender Branson]

Great.

NV, OR and CA must now follow quickly.

[DaleCooper]

I think it's for the best. There are far too many instances of innocent people being executed for me to ever support the death penalty as a punishment, but that's the only reason for my opposition to the death penalty. In principle, I don't think it's immoral to execute a murderer and I get quite annoyed when I see organizations like the ACLU wasting resources on trying to get some mass killer off of death row when there are plenty of non-murderers in need of representation.

[WD]

Unfortunate. I wish they hadn’t done this, I’ve always felt that for the most depraved and heinous of crimes, execution is absolutely justified as a punishment.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Unfortunate. I wish they hadn’t done this, I’ve always felt that for the most depraved and heinous of crimes, execution is absolutely justified as a punishment.

Exactly. While it is true that inmates of color tend to be disproportionately sent to death row, and while it is also true that some innocent people do end up getting killed before their innocence is discovered, this is an indictment of US criminal justice system and how it chooses who gets punished and who doesn't, not an indictment of capital punishment.

And folks reading this, spare me from your "it's the moral thing to do!" remarks. Morality is purely subjective, and I for one think that the morally correct thing to do to a murderer is to give them a taste of their own medicine. Capital punishment is a harsh and dire punishment, but that's why it should be reserved for the harshest and most dire crimes.

[Calthrina950]

My views on the death penalty have undergone some evolution on the time, and I'm still somewhat torn. On the one hand, as a black person, I'm fully aware of how we have been disproportionately targeted by the death penalty, and of the ways in which it has been unfairly utilized in the past (i.e. George Stinney, the Scottsboro Boys). And far too many innocent people have been executed in our country, and others kept on death row for decades. But on the other hand, I feel as if the death penalty is appropriate for the most heinous of crimes. Moreover, I don't buy the arguments that it is unconstitutional, as the Constitution itself mentions capital punishment in the context of Grand Jury indictments for such crimes.

[Mr. Morden]

Virginia herself probably should have posted this on the Q&A board, as it's big forum news that she'll no longer be executing people for sock accounts.

[afleitch]

Fantastic news.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As I noted several months ago: unfortunate, but not unexpected, given VA's shift towards Democrats.

[Alcibiades]

Fantastic news. The Northam administration and associated trifecta continues to provide progressive leadership to a state which lacked it for so many years.

[Alcibiades]

Unfortunate. I wish they hadn’t done this, I’ve always felt that for the most depraved and heinous of crimes, execution is absolutely justified as a punishment.

Exactly. While it is true that inmates of color tend to be disproportionately sent to death row, and while it is also true that some innocent people do end up getting killed before their innocence is discovered, this is an indictment of US criminal justice system and how it chooses who gets punished and who doesn't, not an indictment of capital punishment.

And folks reading this, spare me from your "it's the moral thing to do!" remarks. Morality is purely subjective, and I for one think that the morally correct thing to do to a murderer is to give them a taste of their own medicine. Capital punishment is a harsh and dire punishment, but that's why it should be reserved for the harshest and most dire crimes.

So rapists should be given a sentence of being raped? Those convicted of violent assaults beaten black and blue by the agents of the state? The ‘eye for an eye’ argument makes little sense.

My reasons for opposing the death penalty are twofold; first, the moral dimension, that I believe the right to life to be absolute (as without, the bases for all other rights crumble away), and I do not think the state should have the immense power to take a life.

Secondly, for practical reasons; the death penalty does absolutely nothing to reduce crime, but is expensive, inconsistently applied, and cannot be overturned. Even if I didn’t have a moral objection on principle to the death penalty, these practical factors mean that I would never actually want to see it used in practice, as the risks far outweigh the rewards.

You say that the problem is unfairness within the US criminal justice system, not the death penalty itself. It is absolutely true that the US should be doing a lot more to correct these injustices, but even in the most progressive criminal justice system, human nature and probability mean that an element of bias and mistakes will always remain, rendering the death penalty too dangerous to implement.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Great.

NV, OR and CA must now follow quickly.

It's crazy to think that the most liberal states like California and Oregon and Montana as the second-most libertarian state still have the death penalty (though they don't exercise it anymore), whereas uber-Republican states such as North Dakota, West Virginia, and Alaska have long abolished it.

[WD]

Unfortunate. I wish they hadn’t done this, I’ve always felt that for the most depraved and heinous of crimes, execution is absolutely justified as a punishment.

Exactly. While it is true that inmates of color tend to be disproportionately sent to death row, and while it is also true that some innocent people do end up getting killed before their innocence is discovered, this is an indictment of US criminal justice system and how it chooses who gets punished and who doesn't, not an indictment of capital punishment.

And folks reading this, spare me from your "it's the moral thing to do!" remarks. Morality is purely subjective, and I for one think that the morally correct thing to do to a murderer is to give them a taste of their own medicine. Capital punishment is a harsh and dire punishment, but that's why it should be reserved for the harshest and most dire crimes.

So rapists should be given a sentence of being raped? Those convicted of violent assaults beaten black and blue by the agents of the state? The ‘eye for an eye’ argument makes little sense.

My reasons for opposing the death penalty are twofold; first, the moral dimension, that I believe the right to life to be absolute (as without, the bases for all other rights crumble away), and I do not think the state should have the immense power to take a life.

Secondly, for practical reasons; the death penalty does absolutely nothing to reduce crime, but is expensive, inconsistently applied, and cannot be overturned. Even if I didn’t have a moral objection on principle to the death penalty, these practical factors mean that I would never actually want to see it used in practice, as the risks far outweigh the rewards.

You say that the problem is unfairness within the US criminal justice system, not the death penalty itself. It is absolutely true that the US should be doing a lot more to correct these injustices, but even in the most progressive criminal justice system, human nature and probability mean that an element of bias and mistakes will always remain, rendering the death penalty too dangerous to implement.

The state absolutely should have the right to take the life of those who show no regard for the life of others or are pretty clearly a danger, yes. To say that under no circumstances that the state cannot, is to say that a nation’s military (which is certainly “The State”) should not be allowed to use lethal force. Or that law enforcement (which arguably could be considered “The State”) should not use force against hostile, armed individuals. Now, crimes should be met with appropriate and reasonable punishment, and murder, terrorism, etc... are crimes that really shouldn’t just be dealt with through jail time. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their acts. If an individual shows such a callous disregard for the life of innocents, what reason is their to use taxpayer dollars to protect their life and keep them around for decades and decades?

The overwhelmingly majority of people placed on death row, and who have their executions carried out are, indeed guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The chance of a wrongful execution is extremely unlikely. In my view, the existence of bias or potential for mistakes in no way makes the death penalty “dangerous”, for no system is perfect. It’s impossible for anything to be perfect. But if a product has a 96% success rate, it is well within reason to use it accordingly.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The overwhelmingly majority of people placed on death row, and who have their executions carried out are, indeed guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The chance of a wrongful execution is extremely unlikely. In my view, the existence of bias or potential for mistakes in no way makes the death penalty “dangerous”, for no system is perfect. It’s impossible for anything to be perfect. But if a product has a 96% success rate, it is well within reason to use it accordingly.

I'm sorry, but saying that "the likelihood of innocent people getting executed is extremely low, but if it happens it is the price we must be willing to pay for keeping the death penalty" comes across as extremely cynical, callous and reckless. You seem to be more concerned with "properly" punishing murderers than to prevent involuntary manslaughter.

[Alcibiades]

The state absolutely should have the right to take the life of those who show no regard for the life of others or are pretty clearly a danger, yes. To say that under no circumstances that the state cannot, is to say that a nation’s military (which is certainly “The State”) should not be allowed to use lethal force. Or that law enforcement (which arguably could be considered “The State”) should not use force against hostile, armed individuals.

These examples are very different to the death penalty. Here, lethal force is directly required to save the lives of others. Incarcerated murderers pose no such threat. I don’t know about you, but living under a government which had the power to take my life would make me extremely uncomfortable (which is absolutely not to say that it would in any way deter murderers).

Now, crimes should be met with appropriate and reasonable punishment, and murder, terrorism, etc... are crimes that really shouldn’t just be dealt with through jail time. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their acts. If an individual shows such a callous disregard for the life of innocents, what reason is their to use taxpayer dollars to protect their life and keep them around for decades and decades?

The death penalty costs far more than life imprisonment. By executing murderers, we actually show that we do not think their crime is that bad, if it’s acceptable for the state to also do it.

The overwhelmingly majority of people placed on death row, and who have their executions carried out are, indeed guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The chance of a wrongful execution is extremely unlikely. In my view, the existence of bias or potential for mistakes in no way makes the death penalty “dangerous”, for no system is perfect. It’s impossible for anything to be perfect. But if a product has a 96% success rate, it is well within reason to use it accordingly.

A 96% “success rate” (what a perverse phrase) is absolutely unacceptable for the death penalty. 4% of those executed being innocent is absolutely not worth it for a punishment which does nothing to prevent crime, and has no practical advantages.

[ꙮ]

Unfortunate. I wish they hadn’t done this, I’ve always felt that for the most depraved and heinous of crimes, execution is absolutely justified as a punishment.

Exactly. While it is true that inmates of color tend to be disproportionately sent to death row, and while it is also true that some innocent people do end up getting killed before their innocence is discovered, this is an indictment of US criminal justice system and how it chooses who gets punished and who doesn't, not an indictment of capital punishment.

And folks reading this, spare me from your "it's the moral thing to do!" remarks. Morality is purely subjective, and I for one think that the morally correct thing to do to a murderer is to give them a taste of their own medicine. Capital punishment is a harsh and dire punishment, but that's why it should be reserved for the harshest and most dire crimes.

So rapists should be given a sentence of being raped? Those convicted of violent assaults beaten black and blue by the agents of the state? The ‘eye for an eye’ argument makes little sense.

My reasons for opposing the death penalty are twofold; first, the moral dimension, that I believe the right to life to be absolute (as without, the bases for all other rights crumble away), and I do not think the state should have the immense power to take a life.

Secondly, for practical reasons; the death penalty does absolutely nothing to reduce crime, but is expensive, inconsistently applied, and cannot be overturned. Even if I didn’t have a moral objection on principle to the death penalty, these practical factors mean that I would never actually want to see it used in practice, as the risks far outweigh the rewards.

You say that the problem is unfairness within the US criminal justice system, not the death penalty itself. It is absolutely true that the US should be doing a lot more to correct these injustices, but even in the most progressive criminal justice system, human nature and probability mean that an element of bias and mistakes will always remain, rendering the death penalty too dangerous to implement.

The state absolutely should have the right to take the life of those who show no regard for the life of others or are pretty clearly a danger, yes. To say that under no circumstances that the state cannot, is to say that a nation’s military (which is certainly “The State”) should not be allowed to use lethal force. Or that law enforcement (which arguably could be considered “The State”) should not use force against hostile, armed individuals. Now, crimes should be met with appropriate and reasonable punishment, and murder, terrorism, etc... are crimes that really shouldn’t just be dealt with through jail time. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their acts. If an individual shows such a callous disregard for the life of innocents, what reason is their to use taxpayer dollars to protect their life and keep them around for decades and decades?

The overwhelmingly majority of people placed on death row, and who have their executions carried out are, indeed guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The chance of a wrongful execution is extremely unlikely. In my view, the existence of bias or potential for mistakes in no way makes the death penalty “dangerous”, for no system is perfect. It’s impossible for anything to be perfect. But if a product has a 96% success rate, it is well within reason to use it accordingly.

You are correct in saying that no system is perfect, but what is the benefit of the death penalty that merits risking the lives of innocents? People are jailed even though there is a risk of false imprisonment because that risk is weighed against the benefit of keeping dangerous criminals isolated from society. What actual benefit is there to execution over life imprisonment that makes the death penalty worth it? If there isn't one, then even a single wrongful execution makes the death penalty not worth it. When there is no positive benefit to doing something, any downside (like a "small" 4% false execution rate) means that the thing should not be done.

[Former President tack50]

Virginia herself probably should have posted this on the Q&A board, as it's big forum news that she'll no longer be executing people for sock accounts.

Justice finally!

#LlibertatPresosPolitics
#FreePoliticalPrisoners
#AtlasIsAFascistForum

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Meh, so what.  Post 2010 they've only used it 4 times.  States that never use it essentially have abolished it whether codified or not.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Good. We live in America. We have prisons. We do not live in 1790s France.

[Person Man]

Is it just me or do the euthanasia stirrups look like a cross?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Fantastic News

[ultraviolet]

For me personally, the way I think about this issue is if I had to choose between execution and life in prison, I know I’d choose execution in a heartbeat. Maybe there are better ways to approach this, but that’s why I think the death penalty should at least be an option in some cases.

[Sir Mohamed]

Excellent news.

If abolishing the death penalty just saves 1 innocent life, it's for sure worth it. Not to mention the racial disparities in death sentences.