Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe he’s getting ready to prosecute some traitors....... when the IG and AG finish with their investigations. You know..... clearing out some cell space.
The only time to take the life of another is when one is defending life or property. No one owns that life except that individual. A government that uses the death penalty is barbaric and cares not about the rights of the individual.
Anyone who thinks Trump did this because he has thought it out and determined philosophically what is right, may want to look at a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
I can think of two reasons the transparently fascist Trump did this.
One--the prisoners he is killing were prosecuted under a bill Biden signed, and Trump is hoping it will stir up discord against the guy who he fears can beat him.
Two--Trump has accused everyone who opposes him and their mothers of treason, punishable by execution. That evil POS is dreaming of having that power of threatening and actually putting people to death. His abuse of power is making him more dangerous and crazy by the day.
A total of 144 prisoners have been exonerated while on death row since 1973. No doubt a percentage of those who were executed were innocent of the crime they were executed for.
How many innocent people being sentenced to death is too many? One? 10? 144?
This. No one in this thread will address the fact that we have probably already executed people who were innocent of the crime they were executed for, and we have found a whole bunch more who never should have been on death row to begin with.
I guess killing off a few innocent people is okay now?
Kill your babies, let murderers live. THAT make sense to you? Lol
Yes.
Because for me, the issue is 'what power do I want the government to have." Sometimes, you have to sacrifice for the sake of principle.
I believe the government should not have the power or authority to control reproduction. Upholding that principle means accepting that there will be abortions.
I believe the government should have not have the power or authority to execute citizens. Upholding that principle means accepting that truly vile people will walk the earth.
I believe in due process, that the accused has the presumption of innocence and the state has the burden of proof of guilt. Upholding that principle means accepting that guilty people will go free.
I believe the government should not have the power to commit citizens to mental institutions against their will. Upholding that principle means accepting that there will be mentally ill people who are homeless, or not getting the care they need.
Now, I don't think the consequences of upholding these principles should be ignored: for example, we should make every effort to prevent abortions from being necessary (through education and access to contraceptives) or fund programs that offer low or no cost mental health services, but I'm not willing to abandon my principles because the cost of upholding them is steep.
I'm not trying to change your mind on either topic, and you need not try to change mine. Let's assume we are both not interested in changing perspectives. I'm just trying to explain why it's not a contradiction to be in favor of keeping abortion legal and also opposing the death penalty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.