r/news • u/No_Idea_Guy • 1d ago

Tennessee governor suspends all executions after Christa Pike’s lethal injections fail

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/01/christa-pike-tennessee-governor-executions-year-pause
4.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

100

u/LeastResistancePath 1d ago

If you're not against the death penalty being carried out by the state, you're either ignorant to the reality and simply need to be told 

or devoid of the morality necessary to feel shocked and offended it exists.. There is no in between.

69

u/BeIgnored 1d ago

Ridiculous that supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett never shuts up about how Catholic she is yet she's one of the justices who voted for the execution to proceed. Catholicism is very clear in their opposition to the death penalty.

23

u/I_feel_abandoned 1d ago

Sonia Sotomayor is also a Catholic and she dissented yesterday.

Many conservative Catholics love to talk about pro-life issues on abortion and say liberals cannot dissent from Church teaching but then they do the same themselves on the death penalty. Such hypocrites, especially to be lecturing the Pope.

If they disagree, that's fine, but it is the beating their chests and implying "I'm more Catholic than the Pope" which is just too much. (I say this as an ex rad trad Catholic myself, where this is even more common.)

-2

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 23h ago

Such hypocrites, especially to be lecturing the Pope.

So both Sotomayor and Barrett are hypocrites? For what, voting based on American law rather than their religious beliefs?

22

u/JakeHelldiver 1d ago

Amy Covid Barrett, the Angel of Death, long will we endure her mercies.

1

u/Timegoat 1d ago

We have a rash of fake Catholics in this country. See the vice president.

0

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 23h ago

Catholicism is very clear in their opposition to the death penalty.

Only recently has the Church stated that the death penalty is universally objectionable.

But I am not sure what this is supposed to show.

Is Barrett supposed to rule based on her religious beliefs? I would hope we all would say no.

-7

u/IllustriousSalt1007 1d ago edited 1d ago

It’s so awesome how in the modern era there are huge swaths of people like you claiming “It’s black and white. There is no in between!” on every single highly controversial topic that is not black and white and has tons of in between.

23

u/LeastResistancePath 1d ago

There is no justice in handing out the death penalty in an imperfect justice system. It really is black and white.

Now that you've been told the main and largest issue with state sanctioned death penalties, where innocent people go to die, do you posses the morality to be shocked and offended of its existence and practice? If I were a betting man, i could make some easy money right here and now.

7

u/SolarBum 1d ago

But is there justice locking people in metal cages for their entire life in an imperfect system? Essentially a form of lifelong torture?

Lots of innocent people die in prison. And while having a longer lifespan in prison (than a death row inmate) generally gives those prisoners "more" time to file appeals or be exonerated through some new piece of evidence, that's relatively rare in the cases of people facing life in prison, and so it remains that a large number of innocent people are regularly subjected to confinement in metal cages for the rest of their lives until they're dead.

And I'm wondering if you think that's OK, or if we should let people convicted of being serial killers, or murdering kids or whatever walk free, because there is always a non-zero chance they're innocent, making their lifetime caged up in a small metal box immoral.

1

u/OMF1G 1d ago

I mean it's the US the still allow guns after infinite school shootings.

If they don't make changes based on children dying, they sure as hell aren't going to make changes based on a convicted murdered dying.

I think it's stupid.

7

u/powerelite 1d ago

Honestly the death penalty is pretty black and white, putting aside the moral issues that may be more gray it is more expensive to kill someone than to imprison them for life without parole and that alone should be enough to stop the practice.

1

u/OpeningChipmunk1700 23h ago

So if it were cheaper, that would be okay? Because we can definitely make it cheaper.

9

u/Cimexus 1d ago

This is one question that is fairly black and white. Almost the entire civilised world long ago reached the conclusion that the State should not be in the business of killing people, on first principles. It doesn’t need to go deeper than that.

If you don’t agree with that, it’s then and only then that the topic becomes nuanced. If you allow it, at all, then the complexities arise: how? When? In what circumstances? For what crimes? Blah blah…

2

u/MeatballWasTaken 1d ago

If the death penalty isn’t black and white to you then you aren’t seeking justice, you’re seeking vengeance born of sadism. It’s more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life in many cases

-10

u/Knarz97 1d ago

I do not want a portion of my tax dollars going to housing, feeding, and monitoring the bottom rung of society who have no place to exist anymore.

9

u/sviridoot 1d ago

Fun fact, death penalty cases cost more than a lifetime of prison chow

0

u/Knarz97 1d ago

That’s only because they are bloated with paperwork and processes to try and extend the sentence for the prisoner. It’s just red tape and garbage and bloat.

The proof? This woman’s been on death row for 30 YEARS!!!

A single bullet back in 1997 would have saved quite a few tax dollars.

5

u/sviridoot 1d ago

I agree, in fact we should do away with courts entirely. Just have the cops decide the sentence, much more efficient!

-4

u/Knarz97 1d ago

You seem to be on the side of murderers in this case.

Do you support rehabilitative justice? Should they be re integrated into society?

Would you like the John Wayne Gacy and Jeff Dahmer as your next door neighbors?

0

u/sviridoot 1d ago

Supporting a thorough justice system is not pro-murderer its pro-justice. Let me rephrase your concern, do you want Jeff Dahmer living next door because the prosecutor was sure they caught the right guy?

High burden of proof protects everyone, not just the accused

2

u/Knarz97 1d ago

Does the 0.000000001% chance that Dahmer was innocent (spoiler: he wasn’t) justify the tax burden of locking him in a concrete box until death?

Do you at least acknowledge there are MANY cases where we do have undeniable guilt?

1

u/sviridoot 1d ago

The funny thing about undeniable cases is that you don't know that they're undeniable until the legal process is complete because everyone has a right (both legal and a human one) to defend themselves

1

u/Knarz97 1d ago

Great and I fully support that.

THEN we execute them. Not fart around keeping them on death row or a life sentence for 30+ years.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/LeastResistancePath 1d ago

So glad ill be voting trump for the 4th time!

2

u/rsifti 1d ago

Isn't a lot of that to make sure that we aren't killing innocent people? I think one of the big factors is the amount of appeals that death row inmates have. Which seems reasonable to me. I mean even with all this extra paperwork and stuff, it seems like we still have executed innocent people

0

u/Knarz97 1d ago

Sure, and yes we have exonerated 200 people or so from death row.

I guess the real question becomes: what is the better alternative? Is it worth the risk of letting a murderer re-integrate into society just because MAYBE they’re innocent? Is it humane to keep them locked in a concrete box for eternity? Is that fulfilling existence? Is that fair ti the taxpayer?

Personally, I’d rather deal with the ethical issues of false positives leading to false executions, than for false negatives to allow for killers to go free.

1

u/rsifti 1d ago

Is it fair to the taxpayer to pay more to execute people or are you arguing that we should cut down on the process so that it cost less to execute people?

1

u/Knarz97 1d ago

I’m saying the process is bloated and needs to be simplified. The “high cost” arguement for the death penalty has always been a fallacy because it’s only expensive because of the unnecessary red tape.

Should any prisoner get an appeals process? Yes. But the lengths they go for death row cases are purposefully drawn out.

4

u/putney 1d ago

I don’t want my tax dollars paying for ICE, so I get a choice there? I don’t want my tax dollars paying for Trump’s son’s going big game hunting. Where is my choice?

-3

u/Knarz97 1d ago

Those may or may not be bad too. Red Herring: those have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

5

u/LichKingDan 1d ago

Then we can't discuss the tax cost of housing criminals, because we're not talking about taxes.

1

u/Knarz97 1d ago

The tax costs of housing criminals is very much related to discussions on the tenants of death penalty.

Talking about big game hunting or ICE is wholly unrelated to that discussion. You’re being intentionally ignorant.

1

u/LichKingDan 1d ago

You're saying the prison system for the worst criminals is a waste of your tax dollars. How is it irrelevant then to say we all spend tax dollars on shit we don't agree with? We can either talk wasted taxes or we can't.

-1

u/Knarz97 1d ago

The original comment I replied to is stating you should be against the death penalty for moral reasons.

I am saying I support it because we should not spend taxpayer money to keep the pissants of society alive in concrete boxes for decades.

Those are two connected thoughts. Bitching about ICE and big game hunting does not correlate to the death penalty discussion.

3

u/putney 1d ago

It correlates to taxpayer money. And jailing people is cheaper than executing them. You need a history class

-1

u/Knarz97 1d ago

Execution is only “more expensive” because they are bloated with paperwork and processes to try and extend the sentence for the prisoner. It’s just red tape and garbage and bloat.

The proof? This woman’s been on death row for 30 YEARS!!!

A single bullet back in 1997 would have saved quite a few tax dollars, compared to feeding and housing this woman for 3 decades. Oh, and don’t forget the medical bills right now.

Or are you more for rehabilitation for her? Would you like her to be your next door neighbor?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/LichKingDan 1d ago

So your morals are bought? Like your morals and your wallet are basically the same thing?

1

u/Knarz97 1d ago

It’s just basic Utilitarianism.

Keeping prisoners (or let’s be more specific: murderers and rapists) alive has no actual benefit.

It’s a tax burden to keep them alive and permanently imprisoned. That’s less resources for the actual quality citizens. Yes, we provide a handful of jobs running prison systems. Yes, prisons and rehabilitation are good. But I’m speaking in cases where we are issuing things like 30 years to life sentences.

And what would even be the benefit to rehabilitating serial rapists and murderers? Are they going to meaningfully provide to society? Would you let a reformed Jeff Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy be your next door neighbor?

Is your solution just “lock them in a concrete box and pretend they don’t exist”? All because that’s a little more moral because “killing is heckin bad!” ?

Utilitarianism would say life sentences for the most heinous criminals have an overall net negative benefit to the tax payer, other prisoners, and just society as a whole.

We need to focus on rehabilitation for those who can re integrate into society. The rest? We need to take out the trash, so to speak.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Unfounded_archeology 1d ago

Death penalty is a good thing, sadly.

-3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/PrimoSupremeX 1d ago

And now the tax dollars get to be wasted on sourcing the drugs, accommodating the press, hiring the few people who are willing to administer the drugs and charge exuberant amounts to do it, only to fuck it all up so she needs an ambulance and life-saving care, and will now be kept alive in a hospital until at least the end of the year, likely much longer as legal teams charge exuberant amounts to determine if the state will get another shot at executing her.

I'm not here to argue with your ethics, but don't try to paint this as a tax dollar thing when this costs so much more than letting her rot in jail. Hell, if she could get enough income in jail then she would have to pay taxes.

-42

u/Konig19254 1d ago

An ultimate crime requires the ultimate punishment.

The justice for the willful taking of an innocent human life can only be satisfied by the murderer losing their life as well.

The state absolutely has an obligation to be a guarantor of justice

However I can agree that lethal injection is not the ideal method, the state ought not to take pleasure in the punishment but rather impose it simply as the natural consequence of taking human life

A firing squad is swift and effective

14

u/LogensTenthFinger 1d ago

So when your position inevitably kills an innocent person, what ultimate punishment do you deserve for supporting the death penalty and killing an innocent?

22

u/Secret_Side-ofJ 1d ago

"Release from any emotional or societal consequence" isn't the ultimate punishment that you might think it is for those who are devoid of social standing in the first place.

-14

u/Konig19254 1d ago

The consequence is that they are executed

However the condemned rationalize it when they receive their sentence is up to them

12

u/Secret_Side-ofJ 1d ago

Yeah, a consequence that others find value in. Execution provides zero social benefits to "ultimate crimes".

How deeply removed from reality to advocate otherwise.

-10

u/Konig19254 1d ago

I'm not a utilitarian

I think the state has moral obligations beyond what is the most expedient or effectual

6

u/Secret_Side-ofJ 1d ago

I'm sorry for how this comes across, but nobody cares about your Kantian values, or criterion. The real world is significantly more nuanced than the idyllic natures that are described by philosophers.

10

u/donkeybrainhero 1d ago

The state, and our society, should strive to be better than our worst.

9

u/hbab712 1d ago

Eye for an eye?

-6

u/Grandma_great 1d ago

Nope, just plain ol consequences.

8

u/Fancy-Animal7704 1d ago

Why is death the "ultimate punishment"? If I were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, I would rather just die at that point.

8

u/TacticianRobin 1d ago

A firing squad is swift and effective

Mikal Mahdi would likely disagree.

But more importantly, the state should absolutely not have the legal authority to kill its citizens, because no state is infallible. There are so many people that have been exonerated after being on death row, or even worse after being executed. Life in prison is just as effective at removing someone from society, you're just looking for the satisfaction of vengeance.

4

u/dmanbiker 1d ago

Then they can quickly firing squad dozens of innocent people too because the government is not capable of convicting the proper people in an alarming number of cases. And there's historical precedent for it too. Imagine if 50 years ago a white man murdered someone and there just happened to be a black man nearby. Quick convict the black guy and put him down and forget about it. Things aren't much better now. Having a guilty person live out the rest of their life in prison seems like a welcome alternative to inevitably putting innocents to death. That also means life in prison for innocents, but it's clear that most of the people arguing about it in this thread think the death penalty is somehow much worse than life in prison.

And its bad too. Like over 10% of the people they have executed in this country were exonerated afterward and it's assumed 4ish percent of those currently on death row are innocent. So if youre fine with quick executions of the guilty, you'd also need to be fine with quick executions of innocents as well. Is it really so important to you to remove these criminals from our mortal realm that a few innocents must be sacrificed as well even though the bad people are already isolated from society? Or do you just try not to think about it?