News

23305 readers

4569 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

The strange case that the Supreme Court keeps refusing to decide (www.vox.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Smith’s case, known as Hamm v. Smith, first arrived on the Court’s doorstep in August 2023. Since then, the justices have met more than two dozen times to decide what to do about the case, and each time they’ve put the decision off until a future meeting.

No one outside of the Court can know for sure why the justices keep delaying, but if you follow the Court’s Eighth Amendment cases closely, it’s easy to see how the Hamm case could open up all kinds of internal rifts among the justices.

The Eighth Amendment, which has a vague ban on “cruel and unusual punishments,” is at the center of the Hamm case because, for decades, the Court has held this amendment forbids executions of intellectually disabled offenders (and offenders who commit a crime while they are juveniles). The idea is that both groups have diminished mental capacity, at least as compared to non-disabled adults, and thus bear less moral responsibility even for homicide crimes.

That idea, however, has long been contested by the Court’s various ideological factions, and the Hamm case potentially reopens up all of the Court’s issues with the amendment at once. Indeed, in the worst-case scenario for criminal defendants, the justices could potentially overrule more than 60 years of precedents protecting against excessive punishments.

Archived at https://ghostarchive.org/archive/SU1Ce

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The U.S. just needs to move into the modern era and abolish capital punishment.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How else does it remove undesirables. /s

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Or service it's hard on for revenge

[+] [email protected] -10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The idea is that both groups have diminished mental capacity, at least as compared to non-disabled adults.

Following this logic, inebriated or otherwise under the influence adults should also be judged to have less moral culpability.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Apples and oranges. People with diminished mental capacity did not make a choice to have diminished mental capacity, and children did not make the choice to be children with underdeveloped brains.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

You're right. It's called an exigent circumstance instead.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

I don't think that follows, because those are temporary conditions, and consuming the drug is a choice made by an individual not currently under the influence. So it's the person's responsibility before they consume the drug to prepare their environment for when they are under the influence. If they're so destructive under the influence that they can't not commit a crime, it is their responsibility not to take the drug at all.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

No it doesn't because a person chooses to get intoxicated. One does not choose to be a child or be mentally impaired.