re: Oregon Gov. Kate Brown commutes sentences of all death row inmates

quote:

---

frick that count, people like her ruin Oregon

---

Oregon- beautiful state. Portland? Total dumpster.
I was there last week and was stunned by the amount of homeless lining the streets. Just behind the Jubitz truck stop on Marine Dr is hundreds and hundreds of tents, broken down rv's, and heaps of garbage. It's horrible what that city has become.

The arguments for this, from Oregonians are:

1) it is cheaper to keep someone alive than execute them (google it)
2) the state should never have the power to kill someone, especially since 5% of those killed were actually innocent
3) mental toll on a person who has to do the execution
4) oregon hasn’t executed anyone since 1997, why start again now

RIP

quote:

---

You can't say who will be in office 10 years from now. .

---

No, but the odds are pretty high that whomever (whatever) it is will be a commie.

This thread needs to be moved to the Poli Board

quote:

---

Understanding how the justice system works

---

And you understand that the appeals process for death penalty cases is extremely meticulous then wouldn’t you?

quote:

---

1) it is cheaper to keep someone alive than execute them (google it)

---

This isn't a cost of imprisonment vs execution, but rather all the additional court costs and burden that is gathered through exhaustion of appeals.

quote:

---

2) the state should never have the power to kill someone, especially since 5% of those killed were actually innocent

---

The stat is a bit construed. It is 3800 have been executed and 190 have been exonerated since 1973. There have been roughly 10,000 convicted and sentenced to death row in that time, meaning the actual number is closer to 2% of those convicted were innocent. Still too high, just not quite the 5% of the people executed were actually innocent. I'd say maybe that's a Oregon only number, but they haven't had any death row cases exonerated during that span.

quote:

---

3) mental toll on a person who has to do the execution

---

It cannot be any different than the mental toll of a practitioner who conducts abortions. I'd argue lethal injection vs abortion methods, especially at the latter end of the first trimester, that the abortion would have a higher mental toll.

quote:

---

4) oregon hasn’t executed anyone since 1997, why start again now

---

Honestly they should have removed it as a sentence at this point. Agree or not, if the act is heinous enough, and a jury of their peers says this is the only way justice can be administered, then it should be carried out. If Life without Parole is the harshest and that is what they receive, then so be it as long as it is carried out. The 17 individuals whose sentences have been commuted are fully available to look up. There are a couple I pause on as without everything I don't know that I agree with it. The rest though... the sick shite they did with no regret in their testimonies... frick man... I have a hard time agreeing they deserve to have their sentence commuted.

quote:

---

You just insist on having the government all up in people's business, don't you?

---

Not at all. I just find it disingenuous to argue that someone who committed some of the crimes these 17 in particular have done deserves to live, and then arguing in the next breath that the 275,982 voluntary abortions carried out in Oregon since the last execution is ok.

quote:

---

I don't want the government taking citizens lives, and I don't want the government telling women they have to have babies.

---

See, I can't wrap my head around the morality here. 31 lives are terminated with consent of the state of Oregon every day, but as long as it is someone innocent who has no choice, then you are ok with their removal from society. Once that person has a choice and takes the lives of others... then that's where you stand your ground and say NO!

My argument wasn't pro-execution or anti-abortion. Only that both are legal in Oregon today, yet only one is being carried out. I don't understand cheering for one and not the other. Especially when one is yay the child rapists get to live, and the other is yay 11,000 women per year got to terminate lives! At least I can somewhat understand where the pro-life side is coming from when they say kill the guy who laughs at the family of a 12 year old boy he strangled and then sodomized, and then turn around and say don't hurt that innocent baby. The other side of the coin, I don't get. If both are legal, then both should be carried out. If one is legal and the other isn't... fine. Just don't try and morally object to one ad condone the other.

quote:

---

Spitting in the face of every DA, judge, and jury member who worked on these cases, not to mention the victims

---

It's progressive