this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
346 points (93.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7153 readers
287 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ok so technically, this wouldn't be the US regime, this wouldn't even be a regime at all judging by modern contemporary definitions.
The dude was executed under state law. In the united states.
Can we stop referring to the US like this? I get that we have problems but jesus christ it feels loaded calling us a "regime" we're not all that oppressive, and we're not all that anti-democratic. Calling it a regime probably makes it more of a regime than it is by itself.
we could've had a productive discussion on the problems with capital punishment, but nope. here we are, not even talking about it at all (aside from the comment threads)
I'd like to see the definition you're talking about. The dictionary definitions definitely fit. Sometimes the definition doesn't even have negative connotations. You're just offended because someone used a word reserved for enemies of the US to describe the US.
ok so technically, regime is just a sort of generic term more often than not used to talk about a "government leadership" for ex. "stalins regime" or a "dictators regime" beyond that it's use is usually specifically with reference to how the government operates.
An "anti rights regime" for ex. The problem that i have, is that not only does this, just not really apply, because we're talking about a specific state, exercising independent rights over capital punishment, arguably illegally and immorally, considering the evidence we have doesn't demonstrate him to be the murderer in this case.
The title frames it as if the "US" "regime" whatever that means, idk if it's implying the president, the federal government, or the federal government and the state government, or that specific state government, there are so many levels of government in the US it's really not appropriate to call it a "regime" you could call the trump admin or biden admin specifically a regime i guess. Though i'm not really sure what the point of that would be.
The title reads as if the "US government" (an entity, which is not an appropriate description) solely and single handedly murdered a guy who was not actually a criminal (which to be fair, did happen) and then it says "another" like it happens extremely regularly or something. Which while it happens more often than not, there aren't that many to begin with? There have only been 18 so far as of this year. Even in the last like 50 years, only 200 people have been "exonerated" for their crimes. (only about 1600 people executed in that time as well) Most of those have been black, a majority even, the next highest is white and Hispanic, which make sense. So that seems to follow the populous of the jails at least from what i would expect. It looks like there have been about 20 "very likely innocent" people that have been executed in the same period.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ most of my info has been from here and memory, don't take it as gospel.
Like with all due respect, i just think this is an incredibly irresponsible and flagrant way to phrase the title specifically. Data doesn't support it, the sheer numbers don't support it either. Like the actual number is 0.000004% percent of the US population have been sentenced to death, and executed in the US since 1976. The VAST majority of that coming from the south.
Again, i don't support capital punishment, i think it should be illegal, although i think if we're going to keep it legal we should make them public, that way people actually have to deal with the consequences of the law. But It's so miniscule to other problems like healthcare access, and obesity, that i really don't think it warrants the title that implies the government is literally executing people on a whim as it pleases with no regard for anything at all.
TL;DR the title is extremely generous and i think rather inflammatory for something that simply doesn't warrant it given the stats and figures, as well as the political structure of the government, and the clear public sentiment on the problem at hand.
You've completely lost the plot, mate. Nobody is saying that a significant percent of the population is being executed.
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.
I wonder why.
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.
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.
You're inferring way too much here. Nobody said or implied that the US federal government was solely responsible for this execution. 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? Would it matter that the evidence points more to an official act of the Dagestan government instead of a direct order from the Kremlin?
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.
that's weird, because the title seems to imply otherwise. I would think it would be worded differently otherwise.
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.
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.
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"
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.