Lisa Montgomery

[Hermit]

So two - count 'em TWO rounds of judges found her guilty and sentenced her to death, and Trump murdered her.

Ya, sounds reasonable.

Yes, indeed. Trump has the power to commute death sentences. Also, despite there being a death row, nobody has been executed for 17 years. In the seven months since July 14, 2020 Trump has ordered eleven executions.

Yup. People disagree on whether death penalties should happen at all. I think they shouldn't ever be 'state-killings'.

If the state does kill, it's hard for me to wrap my head around who they should, and who they should not, because of such a strong preference hat the state should not.

Something we agree on then.

Unfortunately, you have once again inexplicably quoted a post without saying anything at all that relates to it.

[Cunt]

Yes, indeed. Trump has the power to commute death sentences. Also, despite there being a death row, nobody has been executed for 17 years. In the seven months since July 14, 2020 Trump has ordered eleven executions.

Yup. People disagree on whether death penalties should happen at all. I think they shouldn't ever be 'state-killings'.

If the state does kill, it's hard for me to wrap my head around who they should, and who they should not, because of such a strong preference hat the state should not.

Something we agree on then.

Unfortunately, you have once again inexplicably quoted a post without saying anything at all that relates to it.

In a state which DOES use the death penalty, who should be killed, if not a killer who cut a baby out of a victim, and ran off with it?

You and I have the luxury of living in countries where we don't kill, favouring life imprisonment instead. As I pointed out, I have a hard time wrapping my head around whether he should commute or accelerate executions because of my 'kill-free' privilege.

It's like folks criticising police, while not even being willing to imagine doing the job themselves. Not exactly fair. Or at least I think that is why I have a tough time wrapping my head around it.

Probably I'm not smart enough. Why don't you have a go at 'who should be killed' in the US system.

[JimC]

Why don't you have a go at 'who should be killed' in the US system.

Ahhhh, how about no one?

Not a complicated answer...

[pErvinalia]

Cunt: don't criticise police if you aren't willing to do their job.

Also Cunt: criticise politicians.

[Cunt]

Why don't you have a go at 'who should be killed' in the US system.

Ahhhh, how about no one?

Not a complicated answer...

I agree, but as I pointed out, I think my 'no-kill-by-state' bias doesn't allow me to consider the question fairly. Maybe someone who can think less 'black & white' on this issue can offer a nuanced understanding.

Like describing when a police officer should use deadly force (as opposed to simply insisting they shouldn't)

[laklak]

Eswatini has capital punishment but hasn't executed anyone for yonks. They don't have a hangman. Once in a while they advertise for one in the paper, but can't find any experienced help.

S'truth.

[JimC]

Why don't you have a go at 'who should be killed' in the US system.

Ahhhh, how about no one?

Not a complicated answer...

I agree, but as I pointed out, I think my 'no-kill-by-state' bias doesn't allow me to consider the question fairly. Maybe someone who can think less 'black & white' on this issue can offer a nuanced understanding.

Like describing when a police officer should use deadly force (as opposed to simply insisting they shouldn't)

In cases other than state executions, the use of deadly force by law enforcement in the US should be a hell of a lot less than it currently is. Self defence and the defence of others, where deadly force is the only possibility, should be the sole cases. Many US police shootings (and a handful of Australian ones) have been way outside those boundaries...

[Cunt]

Why don't you have a go at 'who should be killed' in the US system.

Ahhhh, how about no one?

Not a complicated answer...

I agree, but as I pointed out, I think my 'no-kill-by-state' bias doesn't allow me to consider the question fairly. Maybe someone who can think less 'black & white' on this issue can offer a nuanced understanding.

Like describing when a police officer should use deadly force (as opposed to simply insisting they shouldn't)

In cases other than state executions, the use of deadly force by law enforcement in the US should be a hell of a lot less than it currently is. Self defence and the defence of others, where deadly force is the only possibility, should be the sole cases. Many US police shootings (and a handful of Australian ones) have been way outside those boundaries...

I can easily get behind that.

Much tougher is to describe when they should.

Like with this subject, it's easy to gain sympathy for Ms M., as a victim of the system. Much harder to show sympathy for the system that requires occasional killing.

Like I said, I can't really get my mind around 'when they should' kill, when I think they simply shouldn't.

[Sean Hayden]

Put yourself in the victim and their family's position then. Now try to come up with something more meaningful than a utilitarian argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to see their loved one's killer killed.

[Cunt]

Put yourself in the victim and their family's position then.

Yuck.

I'll try.

Now try to come up with something more meaningful than a utilitarian argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to see their loved one's killer killed.

I don't argue that. I think the point would be to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to have the state kill their daughters killer.

To answer your challenge, I mean.

I would say that, while the offended parties might 'rightly' kill the perpetrator, the state cannot, since the state can't be trusted with the right to kill citizens.

Practically, what this means is that I don't want state-killing, but can accept a person killing in retaliation, then facing a judge or jury over their crime.

Neither is perfect, one just strikes as less ugly.

[Svartalf]

So two - count 'em TWO rounds of judges found her guilty and sentenced her to death, and Trump murdered her.

Ya, sounds reasonable.

I'm against death penalty, but I also recognize that is a luxury. Some poor countries don't have the resources to hold prisoners humanely, and have to kill them for public safety.

You forget whatever HCJ handled the request for certiorari... I'm sure there are ways to find that bill of denial, with its mendacious justifications, and the name of its author... only I'm not sur where and how to go a lookin'.

It's not usual for me to go about making a fuss about killers being executed, but this, this is a totally different kind of function. To start with , the very fact the lady spent most of her time in a federal loonybin rather than a proper death row goes a long way to show she was batty from day one and some before... and you don't punish those who, by reason of insanity, are not actually responsible for their acts. You treat them if you can, or you keep them under lock and thorazine if you can't, but you don't kill them like that... such a way to deal with the insane went the way of the dodo in '45.

The other thing that gets me irate to no end is the obvious and quite voluntary and calculated misapplication of the law. and to me, justice personnel who in any way shape of form misuse, deform, fail to apply, wrongly apply, or mendaciously misapply the existing laws, or support or abet such behaviour, have precisly one place, and the is zt the end of a rope with their feet dangling about 8 ft above the ground.

[laklak]

Put yourself in the victim and their family's position then. Now try to come up with something more meaningful than a utilitarian argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to see their loved one's killer killed.

If they don't pay the wergilt you're allowed to hunt them down and blood eagle their scumbag asses.

[Svartalf]

So two - count 'em TWO rounds of judges found her guilty and sentenced her to death, and Trump murdered her.

Ya, sounds reasonable.

Yes, indeed. Trump has the power to commute death sentences. Also, despite there being a death row, nobody has been executed for 17 years. In the seven months since July 14, 2020 Trump has ordered eleven executions.

Yup. People disagree on whether death penalties should happen at all. I think they shouldn't ever be 'state-killings'.

If the state does kill, it's hard for me to wrap my head around who they should, and who they should not, because of such a strong preference hat the state should not.

Use that noddle of yours... punisment is supposed to go hard on the guilty. Guilt implies knowing the wrong you do, and still doing it. A mad person by definition has no such knowledge, and can't prevent itself from doing crazy things. ergo a mad person is not guilty, and cannot be punished according to the law, though it should be treated, and possibly restrained for its own safety as well as that of others.

[laklak]

da fuq

[laklak]

dup