Ah, yep, I was too sleep-deprived to remember that proposal and ratification are separate processes. Still objectively represents a failure of the United States that they can’t push this through. And of course that Congress could actually at any time ban it at the federal level with just a majority vote and haven’t done so. Or that the SCOTUS could actually ban it unilaterally. Or that even just a successfully proposed constitutional amendment would represent taking a stand against it, but they haven’t even done that.

And 269 of those legislators are Republicans

I 100% agree with you that they’re vermin. My point is that they nonetheless are members of the federal government which could otherwise ban this.

Don’t bitch about it. Vote.

I’m quite content to do both actually, thank you very much.

I wonder where I’ve heard that split before?

Yes, and I’ve mentioned that split elsewhere in this thread; doesn’t mean that these traitorous fucks don’t have control over the entire US through essentially unchecked authority and that that is – say it with me – inherently the fault of the United States.

Most of those states are red states.

Nobody’s disputing that. See the first portion of this response.

I think you think what I’m saying is some kind of weird both-sidesism (it’s not; the world would be a markedly better place if every Republican were replaced by a Democrat counterpart), but the fact is that a ban on capital punishment can’t happen because the US is backward enough to have too many of these Republicans representing it.

Why will voting change it? Democrats had majorities before and didn’t do squat

I’d rather be dead

hey cool, then you can request the judge for the death penalty instead of life (people have done that before). But you don’t get to make that decision for other people. And to do it over your tax money? (which by the way, is a fraction that your employer steals from the value you produce for them every day)? it’s a misanthropic and myopic selfish callousness; whether or not you have struggled it is a sign of insularity to ascribe your experiences to others and how it “should be”, and to do it in such a transactional way is even more disturbing.

I’d like to know how much you can cope with…

unclench your jaw and breathe friend, this is unreasonable

Which is why you… support the death penalty? Am I misunderstanding something here?

I am just arguing about his case within the local law. Not about the sanity of the local within moral boundaries. So we two are having two different arguments here.

Genuine question. What do you think should happen with people that have committed violent crimes? If they have no interest in voluntary rehabilitation, imprisonment with the goal of rehabilitation seems to be a better alternative to just letting them roam freely and do as they please. And it seems a lot better than the death penalty. Specifically for reasons like what we’re seeing here. You can release someone from prison if evidence comes later that casts doubt on their guilt. It doesn’t prevent the harm that has already been caused, but it gives them an opportunity to take back their life. You can’t un-execute somebody.

You haven’t read much because that is an extremely stupid analogy.

In saying that one state doesn’t speak for the entire country, YES. That was said in my first comment, maybe you should reread it.

Clinton was well over 30 years ago. Please join us in the present.

This would also mean California is like Alabama which is like New York which going even farther because borders are man-made, exactly like London which is exactly like Israel, Gaza, Yemen…see how your argument is stupid or do I need to go on?

You’ve completely lost the plot, mate. Nobody is saying that a significant percent of the population is being executed.

that’s weird, because the title seems to imply otherwise. I would think it would be worded differently otherwise.

How many people have been executed on Putin’s orders? A hundred? So that’s only like 0.00007% of the Russian population. no big deal then.

probably hundreds. And since we should make this roughly equivalent we should probably consider more broad deaths, picking an extremely broad one like, russian soldiers that have died that number is roughly 300,000 Which if you do the math for, is about 0.02% people killed under the orders of putin specifically.

Putin has also been around for a long time, prior to this he was a KGB member, so he probably has a handful of executions tied to his name there as well. The number is bound to be quite a few.

I wonder why.

that’s a possible influence, but the south is also more republican/conservative than the north, and conservatives tend to like capital punishment a lot more than the democrats. That may in it of itself be due to racism, or subconscious/subtle racism, but that’s a different story. Things are more often than not, very gray. Rather than black and white.

Independent rights granted by the supreme court. AKA the federal government. The 9 robed, tenured individuals are part of the regime. You’re just uncritically accepting the federalist society’s position here.

how else would a state have independent rights??? Illegally??? Yeah no shit it’s imbued upon the state by the federal government, that’s the whole fucking basis of the US government structure. It wasn’t created by god, it was created by the founders.

yes i’m uncritically accepting it, that’s literally how the government works, do you want me to pretend that reality isn’t real? “hmm yes i think the government does not work the way it has been stated to work”

Did you know there was once a moratorium on all executions in the US? But you seem to think of it as a natural law that Missouri has the right to execute whoever they please.

“Although the justices did not rule that the death penalty was unconstitutional, the Furman decision invalidated the death sentences of nearly 700 people. The decision mandated a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty.” Technically not a moratorium, but in essence was one as states had to rewrite laws to be consistent with this ruling, which they did.

Since you don’t seem to understand how the US government works, will provide an explanation here. The federal government is the ultimate authority on things, if it rules on something, it’s the law that sticks. However this also requires enforcement (as seen with weed) if the federal government doesn’t rule on something in it’s entirety, the remaining discretion is left up to the states who only have to comply with what is explicitly stated in the federal law.

for example if the federal government said that you can’t “execute people without reason” every state that were to execute someone, would have to provide a reason, unless they want to break the law. But if they have a reason, it will comply, whether that reason or not is left up to the courts, and eventually the supreme court if it gets elevated that high, however generally the law is well written enough that this does not regularly happen, as well as states deliberating on it themselves and complying as they understand to be legal.

You’re inferring way too much here. Nobody said or implied that the US federal government was solely responsible for this execution.

i probably am, but in my defense, that title is shit and should’ve been written much better. For example something like “A US state has ruled to execute an innocent man” would’ve been fine. Unfortunately that’s not what it says, and it’s not very specific.

When a headline reads that the Russian regime assassinated a political dissident, do you take the time to point out the federated nature of the Russian government?

Generally not, but generally when russia shoots down a plane with anti air missiles, it’s probably not a federated authority engaging in that. A federated authority may execute someone, but that’s unlikely to make world news. It’s also worth noting that the governmental structure of russia, is different from the US, and is abused quite a bit more. So it’s not a super accurate comparison either.

Would it matter that the evidence points more to an official act of the Dagestan government instead of a direct order from the Kremlin?

if the implication is that the kremlin would’ve done it, when the kremlin didn’t do it, then yes that would matter, because that would be factually inaccurate.

Obviously this isn’t a perfect analogy. But the “US government” (the entity, which is an appropriate description) has given the greenlight for these executions. The supreme court has approved these punishments, and the executive and legislative branches have done nothing to prevent it.

the US government hasn’t to my knowledge given the authority for that specific execution though. The US government has given authority for capital punishment sure. But then we should be talking about that. To my knowledge, the federal government doesn’t oversee every single execution case that ever happens within the US, they might have overseen this specific one, but i don’t know much about it. And even if it did go to the federal supreme court, that would’ve likely been over a specific issue, as with the last objection they tried to make in his favor, arguing that they should’ve forgone the execution because it was done incorrectly, rather than absolving him of his guilt, as they claimed didn’t happen prior to executing him.

Even in this case i still think it would be inaccurate to say that the federal US government had “greenlit” this execution, when it merely ruled on one specific technicality in a many many years long legal battle surrounding the legality of this case. If you wanted to argue that the Missouri government is corrupt and “regime” like i think that would be a lot more accurate in this case.

Here to expand upon why i think this is an inaccurate telling. Let’s say someone asks you for a knife, to open a box or something. You give them a knife, and then you forget that they have it, and by the time you remember, they’ve used that knife to stab someone else. Are you now legally responsible for that stabbing? The answer is no.

Perhaps you might be if they literally told you “give me that knife, i’m going to stab someone with it” but even then it wouldn’t be guaranteed. You would essentially have to be an accomplice to the stabbing in order to be charged.

lol.

i too laugh about torturing people, it’s very funny.

we torture minorities in our prisons for being impoverished

i don’t know anything about this, any sources for reading?

and refuse to prioritize the value of water over the value of oil executive profits.

i’m not sure what these have to do with each other, this is true for most countries. If you’re trying to say that we prioritize profits over secure access to water, i guess that might be true, but one of those is a problem, and another one of those is an economic goal. Those aren’t related. Compared to a lot of countries, the US has really good access to clean potable water.

torturing women for daring to try to be equals is single head on our hydra of exploitative torture.

what does this even mean, this isn’t english. This is a poor bastardization of english.

it was 160 years since emancipation last year. there are people alive still who had people in their life who were owned.

yeah and it’s like 70 years since stalin ruled over the USSR. Cool story bro, should i bring in the nazis also? That was only 80 years ago. Perhaps we should consider maos china, about the same time period 70 or so years ago.

the worst thing about the last ten years that incetivizes people to rupture the system for profit rather than to address the potential for someone to do that because the people holding power would rather rely on precedent than lose a single iota of power

you unironically think abuse of capital is a worse problem than stripping the rights of a countries own people?

brother your name is “fidel cashflow”

i don’t want to hear it from you lmao.