Democrat’s move prevents these people from executions under future governors, after Christa Pike’s failed execution

Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, has commuted the death sentences of more than 500 people on the state’s death row on Thursday, a move that ensures they can never be executed under future administrations.

The Democrat’s mass commutation at the end of his term has converted all of the state’s death sentences to life without the possibility of parole, the largest clearing of any US death row in modern history.

The move comes after the failed execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee sparked global outrage and renewed calls for a nationwide pause on capital punishment.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I’m not necessarily opposed to the death penalty

    Everyone should be, for a very simple reason.

    It is permanent, there is no way to recover from it once completed.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      So I’m still for the death penalty on principle. In a perfect world…

      Yet I need to compromise as having no death penalty is to prefered over the possibilty of having people wrongly executed.

    • BillyClark@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I am against the death penalty, and for essentially the same reason, but I think, generally, you can’t recover if you’ve been on death row or even just falsely imprisoned for years. If somebody’s been imprisoned for 15 years and they turn out to be innocent, they can be released and compensated, but I don’t know if they can really recover.

      That’s why it’s so important to be really certain when doling out any punishment.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I find it interesting that I start with my post about saying I support the banning the death penalty, and I close with the post with my support for banning the death penalty. Yet multiple people are clipping out both of those agreements to focus on the an intermediate disagreement.

      We arrive at the same conclusion to ban the death penalty, but you don’t like the first reason why I want it banned. Why fight a battle that is already won?