Alabama executed a Muslim man without allowing an Imam at his side

[levitate]

Lol, who cares?

Edit: well yeah if they are gonna do it for Christians then it should be done for everyone...

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

it's odd how "we must stay true to the law," is selectively used depending on situation, even when to cape for pedo murderer? smh

how is that odd? it sets precedent for future legal cases. what if in the future someone like mumia who was questionably sentenced to death doesnt get a spiritual adviser because of this? you cant just ignore the rule of law because the person has done something heinous. that defeats the purpose of due process

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

how is that odd? it sets precedent for future legal cases. what if in the future someone like mumia who was questionably sentenced to death doesnt get a spiritual adviser because of this? you cant just ignore the rule of law because the person has done something heinous. that defeats the purpose of due process

nah. If he's been clearly proven to be guilty for heinous acts, wasting tax dollars and time to further log jam courts for whether he got enough heat/vitamins/religious attention/gravy for his last meal is silly and contributes to a problem.
And is lowkey prioritizing virtue signaling over punishing

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

nah. If he's been clearly proven to be guilty for heinous acts, wasting tax dollars and time to further log jam courts for whether he got enough heat/vitamins/religious attention/gravy for his last meal is silly and contributes to a problem.
And is lowkey prioritizing virtue signaling, instead of punishing

due process applies to people who are guilty of any crime. and it doesnt contribute to a problem. you dont understand how legal precedent works if youre using this argument because its really not about his case, its about this happening again in the future in similar cases.
keep in mind the nature of his crime was NOT a factor in the justices arguments. so whether hes clearly guilty is not part of the precedent set

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

due process applies to people who are guilty of any crime. and it doesnt contribute to a problem. you dont understand how legal precedent works if youre using this argument because its really not about his case, its about this happening again in the future in similar cases.
keep in mind the nature of his crime was NOT a factor in the justices arguments. so whether hes clearly guilty is not part of the precedent set

the term "due process" doesn't address efficiency, timeliness, and progress...innate problems to the court system

So if this discussion happens again for a clearly guilty person, then it contributes to a problem

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

the term "due process" doesn't address efficiency, timeliness, and progress...innate problems to the court system

So if this discussion happens again for a clearly guilty person, then it contributes to a problem

due process just means the state has to respect legal requirements for all inhabitants

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

due process just means the state has to respect legal requirements for all inhabitants

I know what it means thus I knew what it doesn't address
Courts shouldn't only prioritize fairness while determining guilt/innocence because a guilty but resourceful municipality or individual could ignore correspondence/inquiries, ignore discovery requests and continuously request appeals, or use other tactics to delay litigation or paying the judgement

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

I know what it means thus I knew what it doesn't address
Courts shouldn't only prioritize fairness while determining guilt/innocence because a guilty but resourceful municipality or individual could ignore correspondence/inquiries, ignore discovery requests and continuously request appeals, or use other tactics to delay litigation or paying the judgement

this isnt a determination of guilt or innocence though. whether or not he would be executed was not in the air, it was only a question of if his spiritual adviser could be in the death chamber. in this case alabama allowed this for christians and not muslims, so a christian who had committed the exact same crime would have been afforded a pastor in the death chamber.

someone could make a legitimate argument that religious advisers shouldnt be allowed in the death chamber at all (i would not agree with it, but it would be valid). but to allow one type of religious adviser and not another is religiously-based discrimination.

 

[mson]

this isnt a determination of guilt or innocence though. whether or not he would be executed was not in the air, it was only a question of if his spiritual adviser could be in the death chamber. in this case alabama allowed this for christians and not muslims, so a christian who had committed the exact same crime would have been afforded a pastor in the death chamber.

someone could make a legitimate argument that religious advisers shouldnt be allowed in the death chamber at all (i would not agree with it, but it would be valid). but to allow one type of religious adviser and not another is religiously-based discrimination.

I don't think they are gettin it. But you articulated your position as well as you could have.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

this isnt a determination of guilt or innocence though. whether or not he would be executed was not in the air, it was only a question of if his spiritual adviser could be in the death chamber. in this case alabama allowed this for christians and not muslims, so a christian who had committed the exact same crime would have been afforded a pastor in the death chamber.

someone could make a legitimate argument that religious advisers shouldnt be allowed in the death chamber at all (i would not agree with it, but it would be valid). but to allow one type of religious adviser and not another is religiously-based discrimination.

And is lowkey prioritizing virtue signaling over punishing

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

@Isaiah Bradley civil rights issues are virtue signalling now?

 

[mson]

The man is going to be punished either way. He wants the same right as anbody else in the same position.

 

[TaxCollector13459]

Kinda don't care for either side.

I completely oppose the death penalty, but if you're getting executed seems to me that details are just details. He's had 20 years to make his peace with God, whether someone is standing next to him or not doesn't really seem like much of a thing to talk about like a civil rights violation. I mean, they taking your life, if any civil right is being violated it'd be that one.

That said, they're a$$holes for not just allowing the imam in. How does it hurt them at all? Some people excuse the most irrational shyt for the sake of "policies".

Nah fam
This is why the state feels empowered imo

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

@Isaiah Bradley civil rights issues are virtue signalling now?

Ignoring an individual's activity to cape for them by using legit plights like civil rights and religious discrimination, does nothing to solve the plights or curb the activity
The individual doing the capeing benefits not society

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

Ignoring an individual's activity to cape for them by using legit plights like civil rights and religious discrimination, does nothing to solve the plights or curb the activity
The individual doing the capeing benefits not society

nobody is ignoring his activity. ive already said it was a heinous crime. i didnt even say he shouldnt be put to death for fukks sake. but someones "activity" should have no impact on the rule of law.
also im not benefiting at all from this argument with you but whatever...