81–90 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Some practices are totally abhorrent and have no place in any liberal society.
That's only if you consider the only societies of value to be "liberal"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Kasab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masood_Azhar (Got released after a hijacking and founded JeM)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the critical distinction in "federal habeas relief"? Does that mean that state appellate courts can/do consider evidence of innocence in order to vacate a conviction?
No it doesn't. It just means that this particular case doesn't speak to states doing that or not. It has no applicability outside of federal habeas relief.
Shame on anyone still for such an archaic form of "justice".
Let's not make blanket statements or anything.
I'm hesitant to do so in the case of moral arguments, though I find the case in favour of the death penalty, particularly given the many, many abuses, and utter and final nature, phenomenally weak.
That said, I disagree with the HN hive-mind's obliterating your comment.
I understand that US justice system is completely biased against minorities (Mainly blacks) but i can't completely come to terms with total abolition of death penalty as expressed by many here on HN. Here are few incidents where i think death penalty can be justified (examples are from Norway which has abolished death penalty & India where it is very rarely carried out - only 5 from 1995) https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not make blanket statements or anything.
Why not? Some practices are totally abhorrent and have no place in any liberal society.
It's almost as though different rational people of good will disagree about moral matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Some practices are totally abhorrent and have no place in any liberal society.
Some might say that the practice of allowing brutal murderers and rapists to live out their lives and die in peace is totally abhorrent and has no place in any liberal society. It's almost as though different rational people of good will disagree about moral matters.
> the practice of allowing brutal murderers and rapists to live out their lives and die in peace
Unless I'm misreading you, that's a huge misrepresentation of what death penalty abolitionists advocate. I don't want violent criminals to have zero repercussions for their actions, and no present-day society I've ever heard of allows them to.
But I agree with (what I perceive to be your greater) point about differences in personal moral code. I was merely speaking contextually about the general trend Western society has followed for the past few centuries -- like fewer, more lenient punishments and more respect for civil rights, among others.
In 2015 we had 41 cases of homicide.
It can be done.
In the United States, innocence has never been grounds for an appeal, a stay, overturning, or clemency. Here in Florida, I could write an accurate algorithm for calculating the application of the Death Penalty. Skin darkness (literally, not race), IQ, wealth, sex are the relevant factors. The elements of the case are not. I'm not against the Death Penalty on general principle grounds; I'm against it because we clearl…