this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
39 points (83.1% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3319 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (4 children)

The weird thing about this case is that he's already been convicted on State charges, and is already serving life without parole. He isn't getting out. So why are the Feds even moving forward with this? He's no longer a danger to the public.

I suppose there's a tiny chance that he gets his convictions overturned on appeal, so the Feds might want to pile their charges on top to be super sure. But it seems excessive to ask for the Death Penalty on top of it all.

I suppose if nothing else, it shows that the Justice Department is making decisions independently of the White House, as it should.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 9 points 10 months ago

it shows that the Justice Department is making decisions independently of the White House, as it should.

That is exactly my take as well. Glad to see it was already said.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I suppose if nothing else, it shows that the Justice Department is making decisions independently of the White House, as it should.

So do you think Biden didn't understand how the federal government worked when he made this campaign pledge or do you think he knowingly lied to voters about being able to do something he couldn't?

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I think he had multiple priorities when deciding to name Merrick Garland as AG. Its obvious that Garland doesn't have the same ideas about the Death Penalty that Biden has, yet he named him anyway. Is that breaking a campaign promise?

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 0 points 10 months ago

do you think he knowingly lied to voters

He's been known to do that a lot even by politician standards, yeah.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It's a dog and pony show by DOJ trying to pretend like they're not completely subservient to the Republican Mob.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The death penalty is not about justice or making a punishment fitting for the crime. Its not about removing undesirables from society. On an ethical level the ONLY valid reason for the death penalty is to execute a criminal who could not possibly be safely confined in any other way. That's it, and any use that doesn't fit that case is little more justified than a state sponsored hanging.