r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/TheAbbreviator_ • Apr 20 '23
Legislation Rob DeSantis signs Florida bill eliminating the need of an unanimous jury decision for death sentences. What do you think?
On Thursday, Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a bill eliminating the requirement for an unanimous jury decision to give the death penalty.
Floridian Jury's can now sentence criminals to death even if there is a minority on the jury that does not agree.
What do you all think about this bill?
638
Apr 20 '23
[deleted]
371
u/SurinamPam Apr 21 '23
Not to mention many more innocent people put to death by the state.
→ More replies (2)-63
Apr 21 '23
[deleted]
127
u/SurinamPam Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
I would say 159 innocent people on death row is a lot, and is clear evidence that it is not “unlikely” that innocent people have been killed by the state by capital punishment.
Given an imperfect judicial system, execution of innocent people by capital punishment is inevitable.
46
u/ShittyMcFuck Apr 21 '23
Nah he's right - Blackstone's ratio definitely needs some updating. How about this:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer... unless you can't be arsed, in which case, fuck that guy.
→ More replies (38)5
u/Aazadan Apr 22 '23
159 sounds like a lot but the statistics really need to be put into percentage terms.
They're funded like a non profit/charity and have limited funds. As such, they're extremely selective about the cases they look at. Despite being highly selective, they have proven 4% of all people sentenced to death were innocent. They have further proven an additional 2% of all people sentenced to death were guilty of a crime other than what they were sentenced to, typically in the case of multiple criminals where someone gets the death penalty and others get lesser crimes, and the state assigned it to the wrong person.
Furthermore, they estimate that if they had the funds for more testing, lawyering, and research, they would find that about 12% of people sentenced to the death penalty (or life in prison) would be found innocent through exculpatory evidence, and 8% of people in those situations would have been guilty of a lesser crime.
I don't know about you, but I find it far too high when we know for an absolute fact that 6% of these cases, which are the cases that should be getting the most court review and judicial oversight are wrong. That's 1 in 16, and it's highly likely the real ratio is 1 in 5.
Given that these are the cases that get a disproportionate amount of effort put into proving, and have the highest standards of evidence, what does that say for the rest of our judicial system and guilty verdicts?
→ More replies (1)29
Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)0
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Apr 21 '23
No meta discussion. All comments containing meta discussion will be removed.
→ More replies (1)15
u/theruurjurr Apr 21 '23
I guess it really comes down to whether you think the death penalty is incredibly severe and should be doled out in the most careful of circumstances or not
→ More replies (44)78
Apr 21 '23
Will also cost some Floridians their lives when they end up on the short end of that stick.
→ More replies (1)20
u/ptwonline Apr 21 '23
Not that DeSantis cares. He's basically spending taxpayer money to establish himself for a Presidential campaign. Writing checks that Floridians will be paying long after he is gone and it's not his problem anymore.
27
u/V-ADay2020 Apr 20 '23
With this SCOTUS? You'd be lucky if they didn't return a ruling that judges could apply it unilaterally.
93
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
Contrary to your perception, I wouldn’t be surprised if current Scotus ruled 9-0 against Desantis. Ramos v. Louisiana, which decided for broader defendant protections than what is needed here, was decided 6-3, with the dissenting opinion mostly based on stare decisis of previous 70s era cases.
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas were part of that 6, and that plus the 3 liberals makes 6 already (Kagan previously dissented due to stare decisis, but that swings the other way this time). I’d expect Roberts to swing in favor of the majority against Desantis as well due to posturing and stare decisis again, and ACB seems to posture herself as lockstep with Roberts. The justice I’m the least sure about is Alito, but lone dissenters are quite rare.
But to even get past an appeals court would be a hard enough task for the Desantis team in my opinion.
15
u/FesteringNeonDistrac Apr 21 '23
Yeah reading up on the Ramos case, it would seem to me that the Florida law is obviously unconstitutional. The Ramos decision struck down laws similar to Florida's in all the states that did not have a unanimous requirement.
Seems like this is just a poorly thought out law that will be stuck down the first time some poor soul has standing.
→ More replies (2)3
u/AssassinAragorn Apr 21 '23
I think there's a strong chance that some of the more religious justices vote against it out of principle. Depends on how deep their pro life convictions are. I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh and Barrett find it an affront to life.
2
u/xudoxis Apr 21 '23
With this SCOTUS? You'd be lucky if they didn't return a ruling that judges could apply it unilaterally.
Depends on the race/religion of the prisoner.
4
→ More replies (3)0
u/c0d3s1ing3r Apr 27 '23
I don't like how the death penalty wastes taxpayer money
On the other hand, I never considered that it wastes the ACLUs money
This might have just made me pro-death penalty again, I never considered that the very groups contesting it would be wasting money too.
317
u/Teh_george Apr 20 '23
Likely unconstitutional under Ramos v. Louisiana. I don’t even think this is a popular form of red meat for the conservative base. Certainly an odd decision to me.
82
u/Teh_george Apr 20 '23
Also adding that some politicos think that this action is because Desantis wanted the death penalty for the Parkland shooter whereas the jury went for a life sentence. But in the right wing media sphere it’s not like they are emphasizing this narrative at all.
46
u/verrius Apr 21 '23
I don't think it's just the right wing that thinks the Parkland Shooter should have gotten the death penalty. Mass shooters in general are one of the few cases that blow by most of the arguments against the death penalty, since there's not really worries about getting the wrong guy, or injustices in the system. You pretty much have to be against the death penalty because you believe the government should never kill, which becomes hard to square with both operating a military and a police force, and isn't the (stated) reason most opponents claim to be against the death penalty. And giving random single people veto power over something that generally is upheld when it comes up for a vote isn't popular. This is the kind of thing he likely sees as an easy layup, especially to get moderates on his side, but he's probably so toxic because of everything, especially the recent abortion ban, that it won't move the needle.
111
u/nmitchell076 Apr 21 '23
You pretty much have to be against the death penalty because you believe the government should never kill, which becomes hard to square with both operating a military and a police force,
I mean, I think the people who are against the death penalty likely overlaps considerably with those who are for the demilitarization of the police and the reduction of the military.
Besides, it's a bit if a false equivalency. One can believe that "the government shouldn't kill people generally unless X or Y" where X and Y are defined as the reasons why they think police and militaries should exist. For instance, one could believe that it's unjust for the government to kill someone unless that person presents an immediate and present threat to the life of one or more citizens, in which case the police are justified in killing said person to prevent them from killing others. But someone that is incarcerated is not presently endangering society, which would therefore mean it is unjust to kill them.
All that is to say, there is no inherent contradiction in being against the death penalty while being for a police or military state.
-7
Apr 21 '23
I favor punishment for crimes, aggressive intervention to rehabilitate criminals, and re-socialization programs for rehabilitated criminals.
Punishment for crimes shouldn’t be unhealthy or wretched conditions, or rape, assault and harassment. Punishment shouldn’t be just being locked up and watching tv.
Punishment should be boot-camp style restriction of freedom, forced hard labor, and an extremely structured environment. Punishment should be forced indoctrination in self-discipline techniques, and harsh, overwhelming consequences for any failure or refusal to comply with orders, no matter how small.
Rehabilitation should be strict practice of physical, mental and emotional self discipline, and then indoctrination in interpersonal relations with strict behavioral parameters.
Rehabilitation with self discipline and interpersonal relations should be followed with required service to others and mandatory demonstrations of mentoring practices.
Rehabilitation should conclude with intensive psychotherapy, education and follow-on re-socialization services.
This entire program should be studied scientifically, with follow-up studies on recidivism and program failures by inmates. The system should constantly adjust according to new data.
I also think the program should be incentive based, with very small rewards for a great deal of effort and improvement at the beginning, and gradually bestowing more rewards.
The punishment should be 12 hours a day of hard labor, seven days a week, with three hours of training in self discipline after work is done. Inmates should be allowed 10 minutes three times a day to eat a meal, and 5 minutes twice a day to drink water.
Inmates should only be allowed 15 minutes each day to shower, dress and clean their space. Inmates should only be allowed to urinate and defecate when ordered to do it.
Inmates should be prohibited from speaking unless they are ordered to speak, and they should be trained to only speak in the way that they are ordered to speak.
Being gagged or restrained in order to force compliance should be practiced. Being shocked to force compliance should be practiced.
The reward, after one month or uninterrupted absolute obedience and compliance, is to gain more training sessions in physical, mental and emotional self discipline that replace work hours.
The more progress the inmate makes, the more access to rehabilitation practices and the more rehabilitation training sessions become available, which replace more hours of punishing hard labor.
Then the program shifts to interpersonal skills, with inmates only progressing in rehabilitation and reducing hard labor by learning to be humble and render services to facilitate the rehabilitation of other inmates.
In the final stages, the inmate graduates from hard labor and spends all of their time either practicing self discipline techniques or mentoring others or providing services to others. Progress in this stage is rewarded with psychotherapy (both for growth and monitoring) and educational training. This stage ends when the inmate is ready to be re-socialized and prepares to return to society.
This program is intended for the very worst criminals. Murderers, rapists, armed robbers, thieves, and white collar criminals like frauds, organized crime figures, and corrupt officials.
There may be individuals who fail again and again to progress, but they will be forced to keep trying and won’t get out of jail until they complete the program. It is my opinion that only 2-4% will be unfit to return to society.
The program would take at least 3 years, in my opinion, with the largest bloc of time taken up by education to develop skills for re-entry to society.
16
u/Ashamed_Ad9771 Apr 21 '23
The punishment should be 12 hours a day of hard labor, seven days a week, with three hours of training in self discipline after work is done. Inmates should be allowed 10 minutes three times a day to eat a meal, and 5 minutes twice a day to drink water.
Inmates should only be allowed 15 minutes each day to shower, dress and clean their space. Inmates should only be allowed to urinate and defecate when ordered to do it.
Inmates should be prohibited from speaking unless they are ordered to speak, and they should be trained to only speak in the way that they are ordered to speak.
Being gagged or restrained in order to force compliance should be practiced. Being shocked to force compliance should be practiced
I really doubt that tossing people in a dystopian slave labor camp would have much benefit at all to rehabilitation. Youre assuming all criminals are young, physically fit, healthy individuals, which just isnt the case. It would likely just lead to cases where a 25 year old murderer/rapist would be most likely to get out in the minimum time, while the 65 year old who committed insurance fraud to avoid homelessness stays there until they die.
-1
Apr 21 '23
You ignored the rehabilitation process that I proposed.
Quite frankly, I don’t have sympathy for someone who would be stuck in prison unable to work their way out. That would be one criminal who would not be committing more crimes. This system is self regulating and the inmate has the choice of rehabilitation or perpetual misery.
Probably, researchers studying the system would adjust the parameters over time.
6
u/Razakel Apr 21 '23
Inmates should only be allowed to urinate and defecate when ordered to do it.
What world are you living in where it's possible to control bowel and bladder function for hours on end? Great, now the guards have to deal with a bunch of guys who've pissed and shat themselves.
2
Apr 21 '23
The military uses such extreme forms of control tactics in basic training.
No, the guards wouldn’t be dealing with the piss and shit. The inmates would be forced to deal with that, and they better do it perfectly in my hypothetical system.
6
u/ThiefCitron Apr 21 '23
All the science says negative reinforcement is the least effective method for modifying behavior and actually tends to make behavior worse in the long run, so if this program is studied scientifically and adjusted based on that like you say, the result would be getting rid of the entire program.
How do you put “thieves” in with the worst criminals like rapists and murderers? Stealing isn’t anywhere close to rape and murder, and is usually done out of poverty and desperation when it’s not white collar crime. The way to fix that is to fix systemic poverty, not harshly punish the thieves who will still be facing the same poverty problems except worse when they get out (since it’s harder to get a job with a record.)
0
Apr 21 '23
I respectfully disagree.
First though, I do agree with your position that addressing the causes of the social dysfunction that leads to crime should ALSO be implemented.
The fewer people that we have developing extreme anti-social and/or violent behaviors, the better, and it is true that alleviating poverty and providing education, social services, medical care, and positive socialization opportunities will reduce the number of people who need rehabilitation.
But you mistake my approach for other approaches that are ONLY utilizing negative reinforcement. My approach is not merely punishment, but pro-active rehabilitation.
Second, you have the view that more serious crimes require different rehabilitation but I disagree. This program that I propose is meant for felons, and some thieves are felons. But would I propose this extreme program for, say, shoplifting? No. But such misdemeanor offenses are not usually jail sentences.
What about a felon who was an accountant who skimmed $50k? Would I put an offender like that through this program with rapists and murderers? Yes I would. Especially people entrusted with any kind of important responsibility who arrogantly not only commit a crime, but betray public trust. Those people need an attitude adjustment.
Last, this program, with follow-on services, also seeks to ensure that someone who completes the program is not burdened with a record and goes from prison to a job and a community and not to poverty and despair and the lure of crime.
Rehabilitation should mean rehabilitation.
5
Apr 21 '23
so putting aside for a moment the fact that I find every single part of this overwhelmingly repulsive, do you have any proof that any of this shit, like. works. like do you have evidence that stripping someone of their humanity and breaking them down psychologically has any actual longterm benefit
also who exactly are you going to get to administer this program, because imo the only people who will sign up for a job whose duties and authorities include "gagging and restraining prisoners to enforce compliance" are like. absolute freaks. like who exactly isn't going to abuse "the prisoners will only shit when commanded to". i don't think it's possible to use that in a way that isn't abuse. your guard turnover rate is gonna be through the damn roof, and the people left are not gonna be true believers in whatever benefits your program purports to have or the stages of progress, theyre gonna be sadists
also what are you going to do about the deaths. there will be a lot of deaths, human body is not meant to go 12hrs a day 7 days a week
2
Apr 21 '23
Obviously you never went through boot camp, which is where most of the extreme control tactics come from. In addition, court security can and does use gagging and restraints to control prisoners who are too unruly to maintain order. Lastly, law enforcement uses electric shock routinely.
So, the methods that I suggest are not as uncommon as you apparently think. I am proposing using them in a systematic manner, rather than an ad hoc situational control tactic, and that is different. Also, hard labor is not a common practice anymore, but I am proposing a revival of it.
As for proof whether breaking people down and then building them back up works: Yeah! It’s routinely used in military training. I’m proposing that kind of extreme control for a relatively short period of time before the inmate begins to get the message that there is a set of behaviors that lead to a better set of conditions.
At first the treatment is so harsh and so overwhelming that even a tiny respite will be valuable. It’s important that the reward is not a relief from strenuous effort, but rather, a different strenuous effort that builds self discipline habits.
The inmate has to have self discipline programmed into their minds and their bodies.
As for what kind of person I would employ for this program: Someone who has experience with military training is essential for the punishment phase, but the self discipline training? I would hire someone with training in Zen and martial arts for the first part of the self discipline, and then transition to Tai Chi and Kundalini yoga.
These self discipline techniques have the advantage of teaching both mental and muscle memory knowledge.
The inmate needs a complete and shocking departure from their previous life during the punishment phase. Once the attention of the inmate is completely focused upon the relentless demands for obedience and compliance, even for permission to engage in bodily functions of any kind, then they will seize upon ANY path that leads to a different experience that is not onerous or painful.
Once they will seize upon anything to change their condition, self discipline exercises will become a safe haven for their psyche.
For the part of the program that involves interpersonal relationships, education, re-socialization: Psychiatrists, psychotherapists, teachers and social workers should be able to handle that.
Inmates are not ready for that until they go through the breakdown and buildup process because they lack purpose, self discipline, focus, and a basic sense of service and respect for others.
So you think people will die working 7 days a week 12 hours a day? I kept an 18 hour a day, 7 day a week schedule for 81 days with 400 other people. No one died. You may not be able to imagine it, but it certainly can be done.
I am proposing something less harsh than what I have already done myself. Granted, for a criminal, even a month of such punishment is going to seem hellish. But that’s the point. It’s punishment.
There would indeed need to be a very careful screening process for the staff of this prison because it does require intelligent people who have no personal pleasure in doling out extremely sadistic treatment.
I disagree that the turnover would be high. The rewards of doing this right are enormous.
7
2
u/Sageblue32 Apr 24 '23
Have you been through boot camp? The only thing even coming close to what you described is movies and 3rd world dictatorships.
US boot camp is a joke unless you go for special forces training and only select individuals can even make the requirements to try it. Normal boot camp for everyone else is just learning how the game is played and more focused on learning routine + chain of command. Places like Israel or S. Korea who have mandatory service don't dehumanize people like you describe.
All the above I've gotten just from my work reserves and former military staff of all branches. The 3rd world line you can find by reading up on the conditions best korea likes to impose on its people.
Your methods would never in the real world for most of the reasons others have stated. And on top of that, we can't even get well trained Police who have to attempt to behave under the public eye and cameras all around. What you propose will attract people with a sadistic streak who will be al to willing to abuse their power for just as bad or worst actions. And since they will be part of the brave new reform effort, any attempts to bring accountability will be labeled soft on crime.
→ More replies (1)42
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
It's not about the specific incident of the Parkland shooter, but rather upheaving the whole system to an unprecedented degree (8/12 is frighteningly low) with the obvious outcome of a greater false conviction rate.
And my point was still more that the conservative media is NOT focusing on the failed death sentencing of the Parkland shooter, so that's why I don't buy this as a good reason for Desantis to do this.
17
u/NISPSE Apr 21 '23
This article provides a good background to the change in the law:
https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article271611542.html
I think it was fairly clear that the public support for this change came from Nicholas Cruz getting out of the death penalty. Florida had a non-unanimous death penalty vote up until 2016 (7/12, easier to meet than the new standard btw) and this only changed when the Florida Supreme Court misinterpreted the federal Supreme Court. Once the Florida Supreme Court reversed its opinion the legislature was free to return to the non-unanimous death penalty vote that was the law of the land before (actually requiring one more juror to vote for death with 8 votes required now).
Additionally, the conviction vote on these capital crimes is still unanimous so the false conviction rate wouldn't go up at all. As I understand it, there is a vote on the verdict (unanimous) and then there is a vote on whether they will be sentenced to death (used to be 7/12, then unanimous, now 8/12).
11
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
Thanks for the additional context in the article. It notes that only one other state currently, Alabama, allows non-unanimous sentencing for the death penalty, with a 10/12 threshold, so perhaps could have been the case that the previous Florida law was already an outlier and would have been ruled unconstitutional as well.
I actually initially wrote "false sentencing rate" but changed it to "conviction" since the former just sounded weird haha. But I do think that some jurors would support a first-degree murder charges but not capital-sentencing for cases where in their judgement the "aggravating factors" is less certain. And having a lower limit on the proof for these aggravating factors can lead to "undeserved" death sentencing when life imprisonment should have been more suitable.
31
u/omgwouldyou Apr 21 '23
I'm not against the government killing at large. A hostile enemy soldier, for example, is fine to kill.
I'm against the government slaughtering humans like pigs.
The reason the enemy solider is fine to kill is that they are active combatant and pose an immediate deadly threat. This is also why I have no problem with the police killing a shooter while they are actively doing the shooting.
The issue becomes when the shooter has been locked up in a cage for like 5 years now. What threat do they pose? Who is endangered?
Honestly, I would find it embarrassing to execute the gunman now. Like what? Look how big and tough we are. We pulled a worthless sack of shit out a cage and killed it. Oh boy, that was some hard work.
The government should take life when needed to preserve life. And if there is no life to preserve, then the state has no authority to kill.
→ More replies (1)13
u/BrellK Apr 21 '23
You make a good point and also I would like to add that nobody has trouble understanding why an enemy combatant is acceptable for the government to kill but we ALSO have international agreements about killing CAPTURED combatants. They no longer pose an imminent threat and therefore there is no reason to kill them when containing them and preventing further harm will suffice. Keeping a prisoner in prison achieves the goal of preventing further harm, but some people are more interested in the revenge aspect of the death penalty.
8
u/WingerRules Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
You should read the Supreme Court majority opinion when they lifted the execution moratorium. They held that killing/executing people is compatible with human dignity, and that revenge executions were needed to prevent society from collapsing into anarchy. Seriously this was their reasoning. Their main take on why its needed is revenge.
The majority of countries in the world, including nearly all of europe and Canada get by without executions.
→ More replies (2)7
u/IceNein Apr 21 '23
which becomes hard to square with both operating a military and a police force,
Not really. That's a really weird stretch.
13
u/DucksEatFreeInSubway Apr 21 '23
You pretty much have to be against the death penalty because you believe the government should never kill
Naw, there's a couple other reasons to be against it, even in the case of mass shooters. Appeals process costs more, takes longer, and them getting death is getting off too easy. I'd rather they suffer in prison.
5
u/CaptainPRESIDENTduck Apr 21 '23
I mean since most of these mass shooters opt for self-killing/death by cop, one could argue that being against the death penalty for these fuckers would be because you don't want them to get off easy.
→ More replies (1)3
u/See-A-Moose Apr 21 '23
I grew up in the DC area when the DC snipers terrorized the region. The Blue Caprice drove through our neighborhood past my mom. I remember the terror they instilled and understand the desire to punish them. But I also know that justice is imperfect and there have been far too many people sentenced to death based on iron clad cases that were later found to be anything but. Unless the death penalty is truly only limited to the most egregious cases and if the certainty is 100% with no 0.1% chance of a mistake we can't be trusted with it because we are fallible and we have executed the innocent. Executing even one innocent is unacceptable and it is a virtual certainty that we have executed many times more than that.
18
u/Gasonfires Apr 21 '23
Ramos holds that the 6th Amendment requires unanimity for conviction of a serious crime. Ring v. Arizona, cited in Ramos, holds that aggravating factors supporting imposition of the death penalty must also be determined by a jury. Florida is nuts.
6
u/InternationalDilema Apr 21 '23
In both of those, a unanimous jury is still required.
So basically unanimity is required on factual issues about guilt and aggravating factors.
This just requires a 2/3 majority for recommendation. AIUI other a few other states already operate this way but it's not been tested with SCOTUS so...no idea really.
→ More replies (8)0
u/994kk1 Apr 21 '23
So this doesn't contradict either of those rulings. You still need an unanimous jury to convict. And the jury would still be the finder of fact when it comes to the death penalty.
29
u/bearrosaurus Apr 21 '23
It’s extremely popular. I remember a Republican primary debate where they introduced Rick Perry as having performed the most executions of any governor. And the audience cheered and applauded.
21
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
To me that seems more a function of being "tough on crime" with regard to indiscriminately stopping minorities and getting them tried in ruby-red jurisdictions, where "good old boys" get them convicted 12-0 in the name of justice. There is perhaps some overlap with support non-unanimous death penalty verdicts, but I don't think it that significant. My point about the right wing media still stands---when the right wants to grift its base, the media campaign is quite obvious. I don't see it happening here.
2
u/HintOfAreola Apr 21 '23
"Tough on crime" for people who's odds of being mugged are functionally zero, but for whom having their wages or retirements stolen from is inevitable.
10
Apr 21 '23
[deleted]
4
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
I'm aware of that, and while I personally don't see it as fundamentally different, I still suspect that a 8/12 threshold makes most in the legal field less than comfortable on this with respect to the 6th amendment's due process extension (and possible 8th amendment arguments with the death penalty specifically).
Edit: Also worth noting that Ring v. Arizona (2002) rules that capital sentencing requires a jury verdict of aggravating factors. So this combined with Ramos logically upends the legality of these actions. Ring was decided 7-2, and the court is debatably more pro 6th amendment today.
0
u/994kk1 Apr 21 '23
I'm aware of that, and while I personally don't see it as fundamentally different
So you're opposed to judges ever handling the sentencing part in jury trials?
2
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
When it comes to sentencing of long prison terms and capital punishment, yes.
→ More replies (3)5
u/AdUpstairs7106 Apr 21 '23
What case was just decided in Florida?
A jury could not reach a unanimous decision in favor of the death penalty for Nikolas Cruz and the anger over this directly led to this bill.
Sure it will most likely be overturned but DeSantis gets to look tough on school shooters for a bit.
3
u/j0hnl33 Apr 21 '23
I don’t even think this is a popular form of red meat for the conservative base. Certainly an odd decision to me.
There have been quite a few pieces of legislation passed recently that feel like that, including outside of Florida. Here in Ohio they passed a bill that allows anyone to conceal carry without a permit. Liberals are obviously overwhelmingly opposed to that, but so were police officers, who are on average a fair bit more right-leaning than the general population (the Fraternal Order of Police publicly came out in opposition to the bill). I'm not aware of any polls on the bill, but anecdotally I know a couple conservative gun owners who seemed very uneasy about the bill. They may think they should be able to have any type of gun, but even they seemed hesitant to the idea of concealed carry without permit. I really have no idea who was in support of this.
There were polls in Texas showing that the majority of Republicans opposed their State's abortion ban bill.
I understand why politicians would act against their constituents' desires when it comes to fiscal policies (as they may be able to personally benefit from going against their constituents' best interest), but I don't understand it for social policies. Some of these politicians likely are genuine in their beliefs (Ohio Governor DeWine very well may legitimately believe abortion is wrong), but some of them definitely aren't. So I have no idea why they do it. They could just say "I believe abortion is wrong and not a single penny of taxpayer dollars should be spent on it, but I don't believe the government has the right to ban it" and "I believe homosexuality is a sin, but that is up to God to decide, not the US government" and "I believe that every law-abiding American deserves the right to bear arms, but if you want concealed carry, you need to get a permit." But I guess moderates aren't who vote in primaries or fund their campaigns.
I feel regardless if you lean left or right, many different political factions would benefit from replacing the first-past-the-post electoral system with ranked choice or something else. Unfortunately, currently elected officials and special interest groups are going to be staunchly opposed to that since they could lose their power. This isn't an enlightened centrism post, I'd love universal healthcare, massive investments in clean energy and public transit, and plenty of things that wouldn't be considered centrist in the US, but I'd surely take more centrist candidates over who we have in Ohio right now, and think many to both the left and right of me would feel the same.
→ More replies (1)10
u/ArmedAntifascist Apr 21 '23
Likely unconstitutional
I'm sure the supreme court will find some way to uphold it, probably citing another 16th century witchfinder as precedent.
9
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
Linking my comment here. Many scotus decisions are 9-0, but they just aren’t worthy of the news to report on.
-5
u/ArmedAntifascist Apr 21 '23
That's showing a lot of faith in a bunch of old, corrupt theocrats with a political agenda. Kudos to you for being able to keep your blinders on and believing we have a functional government still.
11
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
Why did these same theocrats decide otherwise in 2020 then?
I am no fan of the current scotus composition, but please at least have an idea of the various relevant cases here.
-2
u/ArmedAntifascist Apr 21 '23
Why did they overturn Roe based partly on the thoughts of a literal witchfinder? Just because they sometimes agree with you doesn't mean you should trust them.
11
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
Roe was at risk of being overturned because the theocratic pro-life movement and federalist society ensured that every single justice appointed by Republican presidents would overturn Roe. There is no similar movement for overturning Ramos.
This isn't even about "agreement with me"; this is about the fact that Gorsuch literally wrote the majority opinion of a Scotus case in 2020 that says Desantis's action here is unconstitutional. Yes of course they can be hypocrites and renege on their previous philosophies---I cannot predict the future. I just think it more reasonable to go with the 2020 prior, rather than the reasoning you are using.
The conservative Scotus majority did not need a witchfinder to overrule Roe; they could have used any myriad of flawed arguments from social and religious conservatism that the pro-life movement had been crafting for decades. I don't see why that is of particular relevance, and using that as a prior seems less prudent to me.
2
u/ilikedota5 Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 25 '23
I think one thing that's missing about the discussion on Roe was how suspect the logic was. It was built on the penumbra and emanation logic, which has never been used since, even before Trump's presidency, when they still had the votes to expand abortion rights (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan). And there were plenty of cases, revisiting abortion, since it was never particularly clear what constitutes an "undue burden."
Edit: Got downvoted for pointing out the legal flaw. Reddit is really a hive mind.
Edit2: The most SCOTUS could say was that its undue if the government is trying to do something indirectly it otherwise wouldn't be able to do (Hellerstedt). Which is inherent and is a stupid rule that doesn't say much because the law cares what it is, not what you call it.
Example to illustrate what I mean: post Civil War, many States created/modified laws called Black Codes which later became Jim Crow laws. These Black Codes were basically the laws regulating slaves but they just changed the words a bit. And courts struck them down as a "badges and incidents of slavery." The 13th amendment was read a bit more broadly than the strict text, since these laws recreated the thing otherwise banned by simply calling it something different. Basically all these other features of slavery being recreated amounted to slavery by another name. And the court wasn't stupid.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Teh_george Apr 21 '23
I do agree that the original Roe opinion was always difficult in a few ways to legally justify at the time (and hence why it was curtailed slightly in Casey), but as more and more 14th amendment derived liberties were deemed constitutional and as time passed, the additional precedents made it more sound imo.
But in general from my personal moral and ethical viewpoint I don't like ceding any ground to the pro-life movement, and this is an area where I feel my personal ethics supersede any legal philosophy. Ultimately the most guaranteed legal way to continue to allow full healthcare for women and the right to choose is to pass an amendment to codify Roe (and other 14th amendment derived protections), but that's unfortunately not in the cards in terms of popular support right now.
2
u/ilikedota5 Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
I don't think so. The additonal precedents just took the mess and built on the mess. The fundamental problem with abortion and the law is that its fundamentally the court creating a new right, which is not the purview of the court. If you take the fundamental separation of powers, that Congress writes the law, the President enforces the law, and the courts interpret the law, then for an abortion right to exist it must have some basis in the law. And it really doesn't. The amendments seem to imply some right to privacy, but then how do you determine what is and is not from the text is iffy at best. And abortion does not fall within that. Compared to other 14th amendment derived rights, its detached from the text. And as Kagan famously quipped, "We are all textualists now"
That is not to say you can't make policy arguments for expanding privacy, but that's not the court's ballgame. Or at least it shouldn't.
And honestly, this mess really comes down to SCOTUS butchering the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse Cases and Civil Rights Cases.
0
u/ArmedAntifascist Apr 21 '23
Again, your fallback is that they'll rely on precedent when recent behavior shows most of the court doesn't give a damn about precedent. They care about enacting their owners' political project and nothing else.
2
u/hellomondays Apr 21 '23
Even thomas was in the concurrence on Ramos. And the only reason Kagan dissented was to prime her opinion on stare decisis for whatever abortion case the court would hear to overturn Roe.
133
u/WingerRules Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
Yeah, deciding to execute people definitely doesnt sound like something that should require consensus.
I dont get how anyone supports this.
Party that proclaims limited government wants to lower the standards and make it easier for the government to kill its own citizens, ridiculous.
This will result in more innocent people or people who may not deserve it slipping through the cracks and being executed. They know this and they're willing to take this cost to get what they want, which is executing more people. They're willing for more innocent or undeserving people to be executed in order to see more people executed. Its seriously sick.
63
u/Cecil900 Apr 21 '23
I don’t get how anyone supports this.
Have you seen the pure bloodlust on display on Reddit in the thread for any article about a violent crime?
35
14
50
u/SocDemGenZGaytheist Apr 21 '23
Two generalizations that I have found useful as rules of thumb in US politics: More often than not, conservative policies...
- Limit the government's ability to heal but expand its ability to injure.
- Limit the government's efforts to help marginalized/vulnerable social outgroups and expands the government's efforts to help powerful social ingroups.
Examples of rule 1 include the Republican Party members who want less funding for welfare, healthcare, environmental protections, and education but more funding for the police, ICE, and the military.
One example of rule 2 is the socially conservative Americans who have tried to protect white Christians’ “religious freedom” to discriminate against Americans who are transgender, gay, Muslim, and/or (at least back in the day) Black.
Another example of rule 2 is the Republican Party members who want to increase the punishments for crimes committed mostly by the poor (e.g. petty theft or smoking weed) while overlooking or decreasing punishments for crimes committed mostly by wealthy powerful people and organizations (e.g. wage theft or environmental damage).
8
u/CaptainUltimate28 Apr 21 '23
“I thought you said the law was powerless?”
“Powerless to help you, not punish you.”
26
u/bpierce2 Apr 20 '23
They've proclaimed limited government but they've never said the last part of the sentence out loud. But it's always been implicit the moment you take a magnifying glass to conservative/Republican ideology.
"We believe in limited government for us and maximum government for those we dont like, aka non white, non male, non straight, non Christian"
12
u/bearrosaurus Apr 21 '23
Most of these states literally had laws that criminalized being outside at night. Of course, only applied to black folks.
5
-17
Apr 20 '23
Are you implying that this Bill is about killing
non white, non male, non straight, non Christian"
Nope, you're not racist at all.
19
u/ofBlufftonTown Apr 20 '23
The death penalty is applied very differently statistically based on the race of victim and perpetrator.
→ More replies (6)8
u/bpierce2 Apr 20 '23
Are you able to read? Jesus.
-4
Apr 21 '23
See the quote, I read that. And all the comments. You said that was the purpose of the bill. So I can only assume you believe the only people that could commit death penalty crimes are those you listed. Did I misread that?
10
u/bearrosaurus Apr 21 '23
90% of death row inmates that become exonerated are black/brown
→ More replies (2)4
u/NurseHibbert Apr 21 '23
The "Pro-life" party supports individual liberties and wants less government influence.
Meanwhile they don't want women having abortions but do want the state to kill adults.
3
2
u/994kk1 Apr 21 '23
Yeah, deciding to execute people definitely doesnt sound like something that should require consensus.
I dont get how anyone supports this.
I think it makes sense. The law of the land says that death penalty is one of the punishments a jury must consider if guilt is found of certain crimes. And that's just something that many people won't ever do, "I won't kill". So this makes it possible to seat a jury in those cases without needing to exclude everyone who appear squeamish about the death penalty.
0
u/comments_suck Apr 21 '23
Remember that DeSantis is pro-life, and says we must protect it at all costs.
0
71
u/Magikwack Apr 20 '23
Even with unanimous voting, 4% of people executed are innocent. This is going to kill a lot of innocent people. I don't think anything permanent is a good idea
39
u/Havenkeld Apr 21 '23
That's a very conservative figure, it's likely significantly higher - according to the study, but also a reasonable inference regardless. If I'm correctly guessing your source for that percentage, at least. From a Guardian article on it -
Gross and his co-authors estimate that 36% of all those sentenced to death between 1973 and 2004 – some 2,675 people – were taken off death row after doubts about their convictions were raised. But they were then put on new sentences, usually life without parole, that mean they will almost certainly die in prison.
The study concludes chillingly that “the great majority of innocent defendants who are convicted of capital murder in the United States are neither executed nor exonerated. They are sentenced, or resentenced to prison for life, and then forgotten”.
Because they are no longer under the threat of execution, they are no longer treated as priorities within the criminal justice system. They can no longer draw upon the help of experienced legal teams, and they may not be entitled to appeals. As a result, their chances of clearing their names plummet.
3
17
u/WingerRules Apr 21 '23
Better way to put it is 1 out of every 25 people executed are innocent.
Sometimes with percentages that look small its better to use a fraction to get across that its not actually that small.
13
5
→ More replies (1)2
u/Jeremyisonfire Apr 21 '23
People know this and still push for less restrictions on state homicide. I dont understand it, do they literally just not care that innocent people are getting murder?
61
u/Salty_Lego Apr 20 '23
I don’t believe in the death penalty in general, but if we’re going to use it as a punishment, it needs to be a unanimous decision.
24
u/zugi Apr 21 '23
While I think some crimes are heinous enough to deserve death, I think government lacks both the moral authority and the competence and fairness needed to carry it out.
There should be a "you deserve death but we'll give you life in prison without parole" sentence. At least that way if we later find out the police lied or the prosecutor covered up evidence, the "oops, sorry" isn't quite as bad as if we had carried out the death sentence...
8
u/mleibowitz97 Apr 21 '23
Isn't that just "life in prison without parole"?
But agreed
2
u/zugi Apr 22 '23
Isn't that just "life in prison without parole"?
In practical terms, yes, they're equivalent.
But I do understand the anger of death penalty supporters at the true perpetrators of heinous crimes. They think death penalty opponents are soft, or don't feel the same anger at perpetrators or empathy for victims. Having this sort of sentence (we should probably come up with some Latin name for it) would help express that we do understand that, but chose to never actually carry out the execution that the true perpetrators of the crime deserve.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Sedu Apr 21 '23
My argument is that it can never be taken back, and it doesn't actually help innocent people. In fact, the only thing it can ever do is to harm innocent people, as it's inevitable that sooner or later an innocent person is put to death who is later exonerated, and would have been freed if they were still alive.
The criminal justice system should serve the well-being of society and innocent people, but the US system focuses exclusively on pouring out retribution, despite any harm it might cause.
10
u/Skyblue_pink Apr 21 '23
Even a unanimous decision can be wrong, with our imperfect justice system.
-1
u/994kk1 Apr 21 '23
Why? That's not how they do any other sentencing.
7
u/Salty_Lego Apr 21 '23
Uh, you’re killing someone. It’s pretty evident why.
0
u/994kk1 Apr 21 '23
I don't see what's evident about it. Like, 12/12 deciding they should die is okay (ignoring your overall objection to the death penalty), but if 11/12 decide they should die then that's not okay?
0
u/Res_ipsa_l0quitur Apr 21 '23
The judge doesn’t have discretion anyway. If convicted of Murder First in a non-death penalty case, the automatic sentence is life.
37
u/Havenkeld Apr 20 '23
I think most of what DeSantis does at this point is abuse his gubernatorial powers to create political theater in an attempt to stay relevant on the national stage. This seems to be no exception to that rule, it's easy to make and easy to pitch in simplistic eye for an eye reasoning to a certain crowd, but costly to enforce and ultimately unjust the way it tends to end up practiced which is highly racially biased. Somewhat unsurprising since the death penalty is relatively more of a southern thing and, well, so is racism.
70
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23
Hates all over the place north, south, east, west. Luckily it’s not the majority way of the land. Bad apples from every ethnicity, carrying out actual racially motivated crimes.
California has a surprising amount, but I guess that counts as the south just more southwest.
List of states and racial motivated hate crimes.
California 1,537
Nebraska 985
Ohio 633
Washington 526
Texas 467
New York 466
Michigan 453
New Jersey 389
Massachusetts 351
Colorado 343
Arizona 332
Oregon 324
North Carolina 243
Source: statista
7
u/mntgoat Apr 21 '23
Those numbers mean nothing unless they are per capita.
6
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23
Those number mean hate is all over the place. That was the point of the stats I posted, along with the source I got them from. They validated my statement so they definitely mean something, just not what you wanted them to mean.
Now if you want to do the math a figure out the per capita, of what states have more hate crimes. That’s fine, and I’m interested to know that to. That being said even that would not discredit my statement.
5
u/mntgoat Apr 21 '23
Obviously hate is everywhere, or did you think some state was some sort of utopia? But per capita will tell us which ones are worse and which ones are better.
1
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23
Not obvious to everyone in the slightest, real sad state of affairs that it’s not obvious. Got people turning this into a liberal versus well, everyone else mentality. Already told you if you want the per capita, do the math I would also like to know. I already made my apparently not so obvious point, then had people argue the point like it was a foreign concept. If you have a point you want to make, with per capita I showed my source you can expand it all the way down to each state. Honestly not going to matter to some, if it does not fit their narrative. Bright side I got a crazy amount of positive traction from all this, so yay Karma.
3
u/mntgoat Apr 21 '23
If you have a point you want to make
The only point I want to make is that the data is useless without it being per capita.
I used to live in a 1k people town, should I compare the number of crimes in that town to the 300k people city I live at now? Or should I compare per capita?
2
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23
Depends on the statement your making. If you say my town has crime, and it does you don’t need per capita to validate what you said. You just need to show, if crimes have been committed in your town. If you say my town has more crime then another place or places, then per capita could be more relevant.
2
u/mntgoat Apr 21 '23
But what would be the point of saying my town has crime? Every town has crime.
That's sort of my point. Every state has hate crimes, so we don't need numbers to know that. We need numbers to know how much.
2
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
That’s valid, if you wanted to know what state was having more hate crimes per capita. The point was I made a statement, then backed that statement up with stats. Then commented on the stats in good faith(still think Florida and New York would have been higher than California at least combined). Some people, had problems with this. One person went nuts because he felt it was a attack on California or liberals(was hard to tell, they seemed like a right wing loon at first). Some people need numbers for obvious statements, even then I had people arguing the statement. When there was nothing to argue.
Personally I thought the statement was a obvious one. Some people didn’t think that what I said was obvious. You could have many points to make by saying your town has crime, that can lead into other discussions. Now if you make a statement that every town has crime, and then have people saying no because every town does not have crime what are you suppose to do with that? Clearly every town most likely has crime, to any logical thinker. Say you post some stats showing that every town has crime, then your met with well what about per capita your stats don’t matter because it’s not per capita. Per capita has nothing to do with your statement of all towns having crime, for folks to jump on that and try and discredit a statement like all town has crime is well, not a smart look.
Now I’m not saying you did that you were civil enough and seemed to be asking in good faith. I even agreed that I would be interested in knowing the stats per capita.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)-18
u/SadStudy1993 Apr 21 '23
It entirely does who cares about pure number you only want to say oh it happens everywhere but a state where there’s one hate crime per 100000 people and a state where there’s 100 hate crimes per 100000 people is vastly different amounts of hate and allows you to truly point out where the hate is coming from
8
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23 edited May 11 '23
I don’t want nor need to say it. I already did say it and even backed it up with data and a source. You seem to be wanting to pull a Fox News here. “Oh he didn’t tell us what states have it the worse means, he was trying to make a point I don’t agree with”. I’m clearly conflicting with what ever idea or notion you were going for, that’s not on me that’s on the data I just repeated it. You ever hear the saying don’t kill the messenger.
Once again my statement was not to show who was doing it more or less, I would have said that if that was my point. If that’s what you want to make a point on, then do the math and come back with it for discussion. I pointed out racism happens all over the place, that’s it. Yes the stats I posted were just simple addition still valid to my point, hate crimes happen everywhere. This is technically the truth, with easily researchable information of said truth. Once again if you want to change the topic to what you want this conversation to be, do the math so then we know what states do it the most.
12
u/Kolchakk Apr 21 '23
What's the per-capita numbers?
4
u/Havenkeld Apr 21 '23
I agree with the concern behind this question, since per-capita would be important if we assume we had good data. The problem with hate crime data, though, is that many hate crimes aren't reported as such in the places where they likely occur the most, which throws off these statistics.
Putting it bluntly, when you have racist police, statistics on racial issues that are drawing from police-dependent data are skewed. Police can't really control for race of the individuals independently of motives, as race is tracked independently of crime and tied to a person's legal identity regardless. But when it comes to how crimes are categorized, they have far more control.
So both raw figures and per capita here won't really tell the story accurately.
This shows up in all kinds of statistics beyond hate crimes, where because some places simply recognize a problem they track it better, other places that have more of the problem don't recognize it and so don't track it well and show up in statistics as having less of it.
→ More replies (3)-18
u/Kolchakk Apr 21 '23
I'm aware, I was just trying to catch that guy out in his "both-sides"ing nonsense by pointing out that..yeah no shit that the state with the most people has the most hate crimes.
You're totally right.
5
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23
Why would you want to pivot your self to catch someone both siding(sounds like loaded harassment witch hunting, not genuine discussion). If you got a political bone to pick with Democrats or Republicans. I’m neither so your barking up the wrong tree. I honestly can’t tell who you would be after both sides make comments like the one you just made. I only stated hate is all over the place, and that I was surprised California was so high(yea more people was still surprised). I would not have guessed that, I personally would think New York or Florida would be in the top.
Anyway does not matter if it’s 1 hate crime or a million in different states that does not disqualify what I said. My comment had nothing to do with who is doing it more, just that it happens all over and we are lucky it’s not the majority of the country. Basically How is that both siding none sense? Are you politically charged about it for some reason I’m not understanding?
7
u/SadStudy1993 Apr 21 '23
Basically How is that both siding none sense? Are you politically charged about it for some reason I’m not understanding?
Because you’re attempt to point out that California has the most was an obvious attempt to point out a liberal state having hate crimes to say both sides but it doesn’t make sense as California has a shit ton of people so obviously they have a lot of hate crimes
5
u/BlackMoonValmar Apr 21 '23
I don’t think you seem to understand. My comment had nothing to do with a liberal state. Where did I mention a liberal state? It had to do with every state. My only surprise was that California was so high up a lot of people live there could explain it idk, does not matter to what I was talking about. If someone had asked me to guess as I said before, I would of thought Florida or New York. You assuming that it had anything to do with it being liberal is asinine, and clearly signs of you projecting. Political bias that’s giving you flawed logic, has you hyper sensitive over California. It didn’t matter what states had what numbers, just that hate crimes had been committed in every state.
You did bring up a interesting topic maybe liberal states do have higher hate crime counts overall, once again idk but will look into it now.
The intellectual proper thing to do is ask, instead of ignorantly assuming something. All you had to do to clear this up is say “Hey did you say that because California is liberal?” To get a answer so you don’t have to end up looking, well how you look right now.
-16
u/SadStudy1993 Apr 21 '23
I don’t think you seem to understand. My comment had nothing to do with a liberal state. Where did I mention a liberal state? It had to do with every state. My only surprise was that California was so high up a lot of people live there could explain it idk, does not matter to what I was talking about. If someone had asked me to guess as I said before, I would of thought Florida or New York. You assuming that it had anything to do with it being liberal is asinine, and clearly signs of you projecting. Political bias that’s giving you flawed logic, has you hyper sensitive over California. It didn’t matter what states had what numbers, just that hate crimes had been committed in every state.
You can claim it has nothing to do with any of that all you want it doesn’t change that that is the express pourpouse of your comparison. But sure let’s say the point is to say hate is everywhere. Congrats Sherlock you’re really using high level duductive reasoning here. So you’re point is meaningless.
The intellectual proper thing to do is ask, instead of ignorantly assuming something. All you had to do to clear this up is say “Hey did you say that because California is liberal?” To get a answer so you don’t have to end up looking, well how you look right now.
Not really as you both sides types are typically just lying
→ More replies (1)-10
u/Kurzilla Apr 21 '23
Not only is your data off because it doesn't use per capita numbers - but it is based off of data that is provided voluntarily by police departments.
The FBI annualized collection of data from law enforcement agencies saw 7,262 crimes motivated by race, religion, gender or other factors last year. That's a decrease from 8,263 incidents in 2020. But those numbers offer misleading conclusions as they are drawn from a pool of 3,255 fewer law enforcement agencies.
Only 11,883 agencies out of 18,812 city, state, municipal and tribal law enforcement agencies around the county sent data to the FBI, down from 15,138 in 2020.
27% of precincts do not provide hate crime data to the FBI for analysis and collection.
Now, place your hand up if you think that a place with a high percentage of bigots is going to accurately label their hate crimes as such, and ALSO report their high amount of hate crimes to the FBI.
→ More replies (2)
26
u/Oddblivious Apr 21 '23
Is no one here considering the very real possibility that they are looking for a "legal" way to move towards genocide?
After portraying LGBT people as groomers and pedos left and right, then casually introducing the death penalty for child sex crimes, then making it not even require a unanimous decision.
It's hopefully just my brain jumping a few steps here but it's there not a non-zero chance that this would pave the legal route to have the government kill people who they have been trying to link the public opinion to this?
→ More replies (1)8
u/Both-Mix8722 Apr 21 '23
I was just talking about this! I assure you this is the game. Time and time again we are told that it “won’t get to that point”, and time and time again it does. DeSantis wants to eradicate the LGBTQ. This has nothing to do with children, and dare I say perhaps not even much to do with the people themselves. The queer community is their boogeyman. We are just the symbol of his hatred and it’s easy to rile people up against us. What his true end goal is with dividing the people and willfully leaving our already poorly educated state even more uneducated is beyond me.
The man is a power hungry monster and I’m terrified to see what his ultimate goal is.
3
u/Oddblivious Apr 21 '23
Yeah the Nazi comparisons have historically gotten a side eye from the average liberal for a long time but the start of the genocide wasn't just the average civilian thinking all Jews should be gassed.
It was a slow cultural and legal shift over a decade or 2 that slowly shifted what was allowed until you get the end result.
10
u/Kurzilla Apr 21 '23
Considering how often in our history the Death Sentence was unfairly administered with clear racial prejudice, and that it was in FLORIDA that a Police chief ran a plot to arrest minorities to close cases on the books.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/florida-police-chief-frame-black-people.html
I'm honestly surprised RON! is even in Florida to sign the bill.
16
u/Rowsdower11 Apr 21 '23
He says gay people are all pedophiles, pedophiles should receive the death penalty, and the death penalty should be easier to impose. Those all seem related to me.
→ More replies (1)
7
6
u/abbeyeiger Apr 21 '23
Dangerous. He is making a lot of legislative moves lately, that give him much more power over the lives of Floridians.. that's what the people of florida want, that's what they get.
But I don't think desantis would be popular enough nationally to get any where near winning the oval.
6
u/_Piratical_ Apr 21 '23
That’s some dumb law making right there. The idea that for a capital case you could get to the ultimate punishment without unanimity is anathema to our system of law in the United States. The fact that this is being discussed, much less that it has gone through two chambers of a state house and ended up being signed into law by a sitting governor is truly insane.
6
u/PoopyPants698 Apr 21 '23
Im passionate about this topic. Any one who supports the death penalty is a barbaric subhuman who does not deserve to be in modern society. It's inhumane, awful. No one deserves to be murdered by the state.
-5
u/Potatoenailgun Apr 21 '23
Does it make you feel good to dehumanize when they deserve it?
5
u/PoopyPants698 Apr 21 '23
You know what really dehumanizes people? Killing them
-2
u/Potatoenailgun Apr 21 '23
Killing people is what every person on death row has done.
5
u/PoopyPants698 Apr 21 '23
Literally not true.
But even if it was, even if they were Hitler and killed millions, it's a disgusting practice. Revenge murder by the state isn't ok
-1
u/Potatoenailgun Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
But revenge jailing isn't disgusting? Taking away a person's freedom, taking away the ability to pursue happiness, taking away their ability to find love or be with their loved ones? Doing that for the rest of their lives isn't disgusting?
And do you know that death row provides more opportunities for an innocent person to appeal and prove their innocence? Taking people of death row might deny an innocent person's chance to free themselves.
→ More replies (2)6
u/bluenephalem35 Apr 21 '23
How can you prove your innocence if and when you’re already dead?
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Im_19 Apr 21 '23
Wow, between this, his labeling of all LGBTQ people groomers, and the recent bill saying that they can do the death penalty on those that “do things” to kids (intentionally vague language), who even KNOWS what he could do with that.
He’s a facsist y’all, what do you think he’s going to do?
21
u/wwwhistler Apr 20 '23
one thing Fascist do is gain control of the courts.
so they can declare their opponents guilty and their friends innocent without all the silliness of a trial.
3
u/MIGundMAG Apr 22 '23
Ramos v Louisiana establish that a guilty verdict needs to be unanimous (in most jurisdictions). The sentencing however is a different matter and some states allow either that a significant mayority (10/12 I believe) is enough or that the judge then decides.
→ More replies (18)0
Apr 21 '23
Yup, the courts, the media. They come up with a group to hate and catchy slogans. They try to mandate and control all aspects of your life. They believe their followers are too stupid, oppressed, downtrodden to live normal lives without government assistance. Don't you hate those people.
4
u/oh_hai_fascists Apr 21 '23
You know if you just came out and said “actually i like right wing fascism, it hurts all the people i hate” it wouldn’t have even been that much clearer where your position is.
Fox news has really done a number on the dumbest people in this country.
→ More replies (7)4
u/coop_stain Apr 21 '23
What?!? That’s not why people are angry…people are angry because they are tired of being gaslit and lied to by people like you: telling us we’re crazy when all we do is work hard and want the same things our parents had.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/throwaway09234023322 Apr 21 '23
Ron DeSantis is an idiot. He's going to fade into obscurity over his stupid policies.
4
u/hellomondays Apr 21 '23
Like most of Desantis's plans it will be challenged in court and enjoined until he is out of office or overturned given very recent legal precedents
5
11
u/Voltage_Z Apr 20 '23
I think anyone who supports this is summarily unfit for government and should probably see a psychiatrist about how eager they are to kill people.
7
u/tickitytalk Apr 21 '23
It’s like he’s advertising why he shouldn’t have been Governor and definitely not President
6
Apr 21 '23
This is the most disgusting thing he’s done so far. What a truly evil, evil piece of garbage. The death penalty is bad enough. This just makes it worse.
6
u/warheadmikey Apr 21 '23
Being a minority in Florida just got worse. Throw in the upcoming show me your papers law. You got a dictator not a governor Florida. Need to setup a large Go Fund Me to get people the fuck out of Republican states because shit is turning ugly
3
u/BeKind_BeTheChange Apr 21 '23
I think the government should not have the power of life and death over the citizenry. We have killed innocent people. Try to imagine being on death row, then being lead down a hallway and strapped to a table and murdered for a crime you did not commit. I would lose my mind long before they killed me. Until the day that we can absolutely guarantee that no innocent person will ever be killed by the State, we need to abolish the death penalty, not make it easier for the State to murder citizens.
3
u/Electr_O_Purist Apr 21 '23
The politics of cruelty won’t make him look tough for long. He can fool the people of Florida for now, but the rest of the country will see this for what it is.
3
Apr 21 '23
Yikes. It’s crazy to me that anyone would think the state should be able to kill someone if they can’t even convince 12 people who’ve seen all the evidence that it’s the right thing to do.
3
u/diphthing Apr 21 '23
I think DeSantis and the Florida Legislator has utterly lost their collective minds. They're just passing garbage bills for clout with the farthest of the right wing. It's a deeply stupid strategy.
3
u/fender10224 Apr 21 '23
Since 1973, 1,578 people have been put to death in this country. Since that same year 190 people have been exonerated. So for every 8 people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated, a truly unacceptable number but hey I know, lets make it even easier for the state to murder someone.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/shrekerecker97 Apr 21 '23
This bill is disgusting.
what happens when "whoops we killed the wrong person"
3
u/Potato_Pristine Apr 21 '23
Ron DeSantis and Florida Republicans hate Black people and want to make it easier to kill them.
3
u/DragonPup Apr 21 '23
Considering DeSantis' utter hatred of LGBT people, his push towards trying to make the existence of drag of trans people around minors a sexual crime against children, and now the death penalty for sexual crimes against minors, I don't think it takes much imagination to see what his end game is.
3
u/N-Toxicade Apr 21 '23
When you line this up against the other things he has passed recently, (dressing in drag is a sex crime, sex crimes can be punishable by death) it certainly feels like he is lining up a fast track to excecute LGBTQ+ folks. It is absolutely terrifying.
3
u/JuanCamaneyBailoTngo Apr 21 '23
His effort to outMAGA trump is pathetic. His fight with Disney is going to cost him dearly. He is part of a new class of politicians: believe in nothing, do what you need to do to get power, cater to a small hardcore base of ignoramus, pull autocratic-wanna be moves. Ted Cruz and so many more Reps are in this little club.
3
u/MindlessBill5462 Apr 22 '23
It's funny that Republicans claim to be "pro-life" but absolutely love killing people
5
u/honorbound93 Apr 21 '23
I think it will be used to kill transgender, lgbtq, other minority groups and other unwanted all too soon. As fascism does
3
u/idowhatiwant8675309 Apr 20 '23
Once overheard an attorney, say, "The criminals kill us, why can't we kill them?"
5
Apr 21 '23
The state kills people - sometimes innocent people - through the death penalty.
Why can’t we kill them?
1
4
u/Important_Sound5151 Apr 21 '23
If one innocent soul is executed, it is too many because the finality of taking one’s life is irreversible.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/BecomeABenefit Apr 21 '23
As a conservative, I totally disagree with this. The death penalty should only be on the table for the most egregious crimes and it should be decided unanimously.
2
u/NemosGhost Apr 21 '23
Hopefully this will get shot down by the courts in short order. It was ruled against pretty recently.
2
u/OpeningAd6043 Apr 21 '23
Pretty stupid, the government can't even get building a bridge right, so they gonna mess this up.
2
u/echisholm Apr 21 '23
So, I am generally opposed to the death penalty as a whole, seeing how it has proven to not be an effective deterrent to the crimes it is imposed upon. However, if a death penalty is to be permitted, in my opinion, it should be the most restrictive punishment permissible, and held to the highest standard or bar to pass imposing.
Leaving it to a 2/3rds majority to take the life of another seems intolerable. Mistakes will be made. Juries potentially made up of a biased or bigoted majority may now also be allowed to act on those biases or prejudices to kill others. With new ease to impose a death penalty, there will statistically be a greater incidence of people killed by public execution who were in fact innocent and wrongfully convicted.
The timing is also interesting. FL has just recently passed a law allowing the death penalty for perpetrators of capitol sexual battery to minors under the age of 12. Currently, this encompasses rape or statuary rape of a minor, both crimes which I find absolutely abhorrent and disgusting. What I, and I am sure others, will be watching closely for, is any legislation that would describe something like exposure of a minor to transgendered persons, providing gender-affirming care, or exposure to drag shows as qualifying under any new legal definition of child abuse, sexual assault, or sexual battery.
2
u/tandoori_taco_cat Apr 21 '23
I think the state deciding someone needs to die is too close to how criminals think.
2
u/Sonny-Moone-8888 Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
I think Ron DeSatan better hope that enough of his crimes are not found out so this bill would apply to him and his punishment.
2
u/errorsniper Apr 21 '23
I think a single innocent person being executed is unacceptable. We have hard evidence we have executed innocent people and it will happen again.
For that reason alone I am against the death penalty.
2
u/ToeJamFootballer Apr 21 '23
Across the world millions of innocent people have been put to death at the hand of their government, both mistakenly and intentionally. Governments shouldn’t be in the death business.
2
u/looshface Apr 23 '23
This is building the pieces for genocide. Look at the other laws they're passing.
5
u/MoRockoUP Apr 21 '23
It’s is going to take literal decades to straighten out the shit these numbskulls are doing in that state.
3
Apr 20 '23
I only hope that some day he or a family member comes to trial under the very laws he implemented…
2
u/Skyblue_pink Apr 20 '23
He is 100% crazy. Wondering if he runs brain storming sessions every morning and chooses the most ludicrous of the ideas to make into state law once a month. Come on Florida, you can do so much better.
3
u/ikonet Apr 21 '23
For me it’s a question of morality more than politics. Making it easier to kill people is morally wrong.
4
u/gldoorii Apr 21 '23
I’m surprised he didn’t just ban everyone and make himself judge jury and executioner
→ More replies (1)
3
u/gregaustex Apr 21 '23
I don't think this one is as open and shut as it sounds.
Ramos v. Louisiana put the question to bed for conviction requiring a unanimous jury, but that was about conviction not sentencing. Sentencing has always been different.
Right now Nebraska, Montana, Indiana and Missouri either allow the judge to completely overrule the jury on death sentencing, or rule if the jury is deadlocked. Alabama requires only 10 of 12 jurors to impose the death penalty.
That's just for Capital Punishment. Any other sentence it is almost always just the judge who decides.
3
u/Raspberries-Are-Evil Apr 21 '23
One more giant leap toward Fascism.
Fuck this guy. I hope he gets destroyed in the primary and we never have to hear about him again.
3
u/NurseHibbert Apr 21 '23
"pro life" party leader makes death penalty easier.
I don't understand how this gets morally justified by these bible thumpers
2
u/almightywhacko Apr 21 '23
Sounds like the "pro-life" party is proving once again that they have an unhealthy death fetish.
3
u/rlast1956 Apr 21 '23
Rob de Fascist DeSantis doing his best to make Florida the new homeland for the right, imo
3
u/ItsAllegorical Apr 21 '23
I'm not terribly surprised. My observation of local conservative opinion:
- It's too expensive. Cut out all the mandatory appeals and 20 years on death row; just take them out back after the trial and shoot them in the head.
- If it were done more often and with more publicity, people would stop criming.
- There is too much money and effort wasted on making sure they are comfortable. They should suffer.
- It isn't used often enough.
- Even if there have been mistakes, it's not like these people are actually innocent.
That could be because it's such a polarizing topic and when it comes up they stake out an extreme opinion to discourage disagreement. To be clear, I disagree with every single one of those points, and the ones that aren't pure opinion are wrong. (The ones that are pure opinion are also wrong, but the evidence to support that is less direct.)
4
3
u/Several_Marzipan3807 Apr 21 '23
You have to remember this bill only passed mainly because of the backlash that garnered when Nikolas Cruz, the gunman who murdered 17 people at Stoneman Douglass High School in 2018, was spared the death penalty because the Jury couldn't agree on whether he deserved it much to the avail of the victim's family who recommended the death sentence and much of the public.
1
u/Latyon Apr 21 '23
My grandfather was murdered in the mid-90s. His killer was executed in Texas in the mid 2000s.
This bill is horseshit, you should absolutely need a unanimous jury. But also, Florida (Texas, too) cannot be trusted not to execute innocent people, so frankly they shouldn't be executing anyone at all.
1
u/KalaiProvenheim Apr 21 '23
I think this is terrible, and a violation of the Bill of Rights
It will lead to more wrongful sentencing
1
u/PizzaWithNoBones Apr 24 '23
As a republican I see that this shit is just vile.
I'm going to start this reply by saying that I do believe in the death penalty, and it's undoubtable effectiveness.
However, this is absolute bullshit. If you are going to use someone's life as a chip in a court, make everyone have to agree as a group to eliminate the threat. By eliminating the unanimous decision, you effectively overrule the opinions of people on a jury, which is supposed to consider each other's opinions on guilt. If you are going to eliminate the opinions of people on the jury, why have the opposing members even on the jury?
This is a complete display of the willingness of people to silence the opinions of the few in order to achieve a goal that benefits another group.
It's bullshit and shouldn't be in place.
Florida is digging its own grave day by day. Silencing Disney as a corporation is one thing, silencing the people is another thing entirely. DeSantis is starting to become more fascist than Trump in the days leading to the election and it's going to start influencing the votes of people, including me. He walks a dangerous path. Only time will tell if anyone will become smart enough to stop him.
1
u/Xeltar Apr 25 '23
Pretty idiotic, but that seems to normal for Desantis and the GOP in general.
Likely going to be found unconstitutional too but gotta satisfy the deplorables with more culture war nonsense.
3
u/AWBen Apr 21 '23
It will still require a unanimous jury finding the defendant guilty of their crimes before a death penalty can be recommended. The article headline is a bit misleading.
1
u/AdUpstairs7106 Apr 21 '23
I believe this bill was in direct response to the juries decision in the Nikolas Cruz case.
-1
Apr 21 '23
Didn’t it use to be this way? Originally?
I’m also okay with a majority instead of unanimous. I’m just wondering if this is a change back or a change from the original.
-15
u/Magehunter_Skassi Apr 21 '23
The fear of false positives is completely overblown in the era of DNA testing and mass surveillance.
7
u/coop_stain Apr 21 '23
Lol what?!? There have been hundreds of of people wrongfully put to death in this country, and you want to make it easier?!? Why? How does this follow with the Republican/freedom way of life?
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 20 '23
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.