It’s not bureaucracy, it’s bigotry that couldn’t be restrained for the time it takes to execute someone.
Maybe. That possibility crossed my mind as well.
I didn’t have foundational thought that I considered to be worth basing it on. I did have foundational thought that absorbed much of that suspicion, and I decided to share the foundational thought rather than to share the remaining suspicion.
What do you base your statement on?
Also, it is bureaucracy on some scale at minimum even if you’d rather call it bigotry hiding behind a bureaucracy
From the article:
“Whatever the reason Kavanaugh flipped, it is gratifying that a majority of the court finally grasps the grave constitutional harms inflicted by discriminatory execution policies. Texas and Alabama seek to favor compel religious minorities to die without spiritual comfort.”
“The Constitution obviously forbids such intentional religious inequality. And despite the best efforts of Texas, Alabama, and several conservative justices, executioners cannot suspend the First Amendment in their death chambers”.
Okay…what are Conservatives saying about this decision?
In the Political Climate we are in…and especially if the topic is very volatile like this one…I would like to know both “sides”? Or was this simply a FUBAR decision?
1 Like
I’m more worried about why the state is killing people.
1 Like
Why should it stop at theft?
The people of that state have determined through due process that a person has done something so grievous that their time here is over.
On to the next what ever, but their time on earth has ended.
There’s actually much more consideration for the convicted than many recipients of the death penalty had for their victims.
Like “oh, no imam, priest, or Buddhist hoohaaa? Oh that’s a shame. How about that family you butchered? Was their spiritual leader allowed in the room where you (disemboweled, strangled, shot) them?”
3 Likes
If only it were that simple. We know for a fact that innocent people have been executed. People have been freed from death row because of dna evidence that wasn’t available at the time of conviction. So many complain about corruption and incompetence with the government yet we freely give it the power to kill us.
I have to agree with this based on what zecarlo said. We have an imperfect justice system that has put people in jail and executed people who did not commit a crime. That fact alone makes me support life in prison as opposed to the death penalty.
If we were perfect it might be something worth discussing but we aren’t.
And we have DNA evidence that some people did do exactly what they were accused of.
Not the question, @SkyzykS.
The issue is whether or not one person is allowed their religious hoohaa at death yet another is not.
Angels dancing on pinheads as far as I’m Concerned. Couldn’t be less important.
Ending someone is the most violent thing a government can do to them. Making it 5% less violent is trivial.
You are already being killed and you know that for 3-20 years in some states depending on appeals. Make your peace before you hit the chair. I say to make it fair take the priests and pastors off the “Christian” serial rapists/murderers. Nobody gets last rights. Fair is fair.
2 Likes
That’s fine too…and I don’t disagree…
You simply can’t allow it for some, and not for others.
That is how I understand the argument.
2 Likes
As an aside…
I was reading just today about the History of the Rawlins Prison in Rawlins Wyoming…
Damn.
We used to know how to imprison and kill people, that’s for sure…
It does appear to be discriminatory, and I’d say more than likely is.
Not the first time Alabama got caught discriminating. In fact, they seem to actively seek and invent new ways when ever possible.
1 Like
“Appear” is the operative word…
I am so damn shell-shocked by all of the misinformation and fake news out there, @SkyzykS…that I think I am becoming more cynical than I thought I had become…
It seemed too straightforward to be real. That’s the main reason I was asking the Conservative “side”. I thought that I may be missing something.
1 Like
You gotta think this shit out. My last meals going to be an all you can eat buffet and I would think technically if I’m still eating anything they can’t off me yet right?!
4 Likes
This is absurd. Does anyone think the First Amendment was intended to cover who is allowed into the chamber during an execution(Edit: if I agree the Federal Government should be able to rule on any State issue)? Does that have anything to do with the establishment of religion, or even the free exercise thereof? The Supreme Court was asked to rule on that crap, and I wouldn’t blame any of them for making a choice based on “Eenie, meenie, miney, moe” or any other method.
*I don’t agree with the death penalty in general, unless there’s no doubt regarding guilt(and everyone involved in that sentence is willing to accept the death penalty themselves if evidence exonerates the executed after death).
1 Like
Ah, those damn Founder’s and the adopter’s of the Bill of Rights. @NickViar…
They seemed to always put in some sticky point like “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” for us to argue about for Centuries.
In the famous words of General George Patton “Those BRILLIANT Son’s 'uh Bitches!”
For many religions…some “final Rite” before death…pronounced by one with the authority…is the “…exercise of one’s religion…” and is important for one’s passage to an AfterLife.
You don’t have to believe it…but for many it is an extremely important part of their Religion.
1 Like
Dude, we’re talking about someone who is about to be killed by the State. If his victim had killed him without him being in the presence of an Imam, she would’ve been completely justified in doing so(assuming he committed the crime). The State is just doing what the victim was unable to, in death penalty cases.
Again…dude…
You don’t have to believe the religious rite…or even think it makes sense…
The founders didn’t write:
…prohibiting the free exercise thereof…and only if it makes sense and a majority finds it reasonable…
1 Like