this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
652 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

6875 readers
615 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Bluesky Post

TranscriptAlabama suffocated a man to death in a gas chamber tonight after starving him so he wouldn't choke on his own vomit as they did it. And this was deemed perfectly legal by multiple courts in the vaunted American legal system.

That's what happens when you value institutions over people.

Link for more info: https://www.reuters.com/legal/alabama-prepares-carry-out-first-execution-by-nitrogen-asphyxiation-2024-01-25/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] squiblet@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Sennett was found dead in her home March 18, 1988, with eight stab wounds in the chest and one on each side of her neck. Smith was one of two men convicted in the killing. The other, John Forrest Parker, was executed in 2010.

Prosecutors said they were each paid $1,000 to kill Sennett on behalf of her pastor husband, who was deeply in debt and wanted to collect on insurance.

[–] Naich@kbin.social 71 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, a complete barbarian. We have them too, but we aspire to be better than just being equally barbaric in return. That's why civilisations do justice, not revenge.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Lamps@lemm.ee 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Chances are, an innocent person has been killed because of the death penalty. That alone has me against it entirely.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

That’s a chance we are just going to have to take.

[–] Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 year ago (33 children)

How many innocent people are you ok with murdering before it's no longer worth it?

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 26 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Apt username.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone.

Buddy are you so deprived of empathy that you have no problem with sending innocent people to their deaths? Are you okay with cops playing judge, jury, and executioner? Lot of innocent people die from cops deciding that its okay if that guy is dead.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] pugsnroses77@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

what if it happens to you or your family? then is it still worth it?

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I don't see any "have to" in here at all. To me, that just looks like a desire to have the state murder people. That's not justice.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We don't have to, though. We can just put them in prison.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Or we can execute the guilty, either way is fine with me.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is that a morally coherent stance? You're basically condoning state-sanctioned murder.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that if you get it wrong even once --and we know for a fact, through things like The Innocence Project, that many innocent people have been executed-- then it's the state committing murder in our name.

Morally I'm not OK with that. Are you?

I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Again, we only have to get it wrong once, which we know we have done, and it's basically the state murdering an innocent citizen.

How many innocent citizens are you OK with murdering?

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Morally I’m ok with that, no system is perfect. We should strive to be as accurate as possible, but in the end we can only make the best conclusion based on the facts at hand. If a jury finds those facts compelling enough to vote to execute a defendant then so be it.

[–] pugsnroses77@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

even for 1988 thats not a huge chunk of money. poverty is the biggest driver of crime. imagine if we reinvested all the money we pour into prisons into actually taking care of people

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

Yeah, and you know what stuck out to me in the article? That the conservative justices said, he was “gaming the system” for too long with…appeals and requests for stays…and that justice wasn’t done until he was murdered.

Like…he was gaming the system by rotting in prison? So these arbiters of justice think justice is only an eye for an eye and these prisons they adore so much are not brutal enough?

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like the husband killed her with his wallet. He wielded this guy like the guy wielded a knife.

It's absurd to think that killing him would really bring any more peace to the children than destroying the knife.

If anything, having to bear witness to endless appeals and proceedings for 35 years prolongs their torture. I'd really like to see a form of justice that focuses on ensuring the peace and stability of the victims and their family rather than the pain and suffering of the perpetrators.

[–] Halosheep@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Man fuck that, someone stabs my mom to death over a measly $1000 and my dad kills himself because he's the one who paid for it and I'm going to want that anger taken out on someone, better be the ones who did all this.

My dude killed someone for $500, literally doesn't deserve to live in society and I don't want to be paying for him to live outside of it.

I'm surprised so many people on lemmy are anti death penalty.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Two eyes for one eye?

Edit: maybe I've been misunderstood.