this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
1392 points (97.7% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
375 readers
220 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' etc.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People keep parroting this statement. I'm so confused because it does not hold up to any scrutiny.
If you think for 5 seconds, school shooters aren't charged with the death penalty because they overwhelmingly kill themselves or die during the shooting. They are also usually children, which might get them more lenient sentences.
This type of surface level logic just makes the supporting side look bad. There are far better comparisons to draw from
FWIW I'm not advocating for school shooters to get the death penalty.
Also didn't NY State abolish the death penalty? Or can he be charged with a federal crime to override that?
Yes and yes.
Lol, walk me to the door on this one:
So you are arguing that because the majority of people that commit this horrific crime are so encumbered by depravity that they kill themselves to avoid facing justice or are too SYMPATHETICALLY VULNERABLE, the proportion of shooters that ever face justice is already very low? Even accepting your argument (assuming that you believe school shooters who face justice are sentenced appropriately), we should see nearly every shooter who faces justice getting the death penalty...
But we don't. You would be hard-pressed to find any references to school shooters that get sentenced with the death penalty because of how infrequent it is - child or not 🙄.
My man, get some fucking perspective. How did you put it, surface level logic? You know a lot about that, eh?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, is this what you believe? I should add that the death penalty is rare to end up being sentenced and that it isn't justified in every case as well.
I'm saying that the death penalty is already rare, then you need to be at least 18, you need to survive the shooting, and then you need to have a jury mostly unanimously agree to sentence you
Also it's not like Mangione has been sentenced with the death penalty, these articles are reacting to the possibility of facing charges that could lead to the death penalty, which has been applicable for any other first-degree murder cases, for example killing a single person during a bank robbery
I'm just saying that the comparison is pointless. Complain about him receiving federal charges unusually, sure. But doing this "whataboutism" and referencing school shooters vs the UHC shooter is not well-founded
How many school shooters have been charged with terrorism?
Exactly, complain about the terrorism charge, not the red herring that is "he has the possibility of potentially being charged with the death penalty (as compared to a random other type of shooting?), when that's something that is a blanket standard possibility for federal murder -- A bank robber is probably not as evil as some mass shooters, but one is more eligible for the death penalty, while the mass shooter depends on the state they're in.
The addition of federal murder and stalking charges is critical. The fact that he will have to be trailed twice for one murder seems excessive
The part you cut out gives the context you are asking for.
Words are hard. I get it. Accepting your argument and assuming you stand behind it... Yes. In your hypothetical world, yes, I do. Was that not your point??? That shooters don't get perceived as receiving appropriate justice because they die or are ineligible??? is this what you believe?
No shit Sherlock. What do you think the point of the OC was???
Critical thinking? In my outragenet?