Not long ago, "murderers and child rapists should have to live with what they've done" was considered a perfectly reasonable defense of an abolitionist position on the death penalty. It's interesting to notice the new pushback against "maximum punishment" for even the worst crime https://twitter.com/Vanessa_ABee/status/1218019316454563840 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @webdevMason
I think a lot of the push back on Warren, here, is that her two grounds are somewhat incompatible. A: We are bad at getting it right. B: Life is a stronger punishment. A and B are not really in harmony.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @WomanCorn
How so? I don't know that I'd fully agree, but an argument like "life in prison is the harshest sentence, but it also leaves the door open for exonerating future evidence" seems coherent enough
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
That is a plausible argument. The inconsistency looks something like: If our evidence isn't good enough to sentence someone to death, it's not good enough to sentence someone to life either. You're right that the "correctability" of life sentences is a major plus.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @WomanCorn
There are unavoidable tradeoffs, here — I don't think "good enough" is the right frame, because the passive position is not *nothing,* it's potentially subjecting society to continued exposure to a person who kills for fun or personal gain.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
One could argue along similar lines, for example, that vaccines have proven risks — sometimes including the risk of death — and that this is simply too great a risk to bear. But if the argument ends there, a pretty crucial piece is left out.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.