The Federal death panelty

[question everything]

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, has an op-ed charging the Biden administration of hypocrisy for, on the one hand suspending the federal death penalty, and on the other hand, defending the one imposed on the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

I am not a legal scholar, far from it, but as with other instances, I think that the government top lawyer has to defend the actions of the government, regardless of the person preferences.

I know that a while ago the Minnesota AG defended the state's some limits on abortion, that he personally objected, because his role is to defend the state's laws.

I may be mistaken so, please, offer your opinion.

I did not read beyond the first two paragraphs, but this one is really abhorrent, not that there is anything new:

For 17 years, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, there was a hiatus in executions carried out by the federal government. The Trump administration, though, aggressively changed course and carried out 13 executions. This was more than in the previous seven decades combined. No president in more than 120 years had overseen as many executions of federal prisoners as Donald Trump.

https://www.startribune.com/joe-biden-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-and-death-penalty-hypocrisy/600108822/

[former9thward]

1. Chemerinsky is not referring to the personal preferences or actions by the government lawyer.

He is correctly saying the Biden administration has suspended use of the death penalty but they are at the SC asking the court to impose it in the Boston case. It makes little sense. Why should the SC be put into a position of agreeing to a death penalty the government says they don't want?

[lastlib]

2. For today's repuglikans, and tRump/tRumpers in particular, the cruelty is the point.

In immigration. In criminal punishment. COVID. They want others to suffer for them. You could say they live for death, especially of brown/black people.