The death penalty in its utter pointlessness.

The federal government is seeking the death penalty against Sayfullo Saipov, 35, who fatally mowed down 12 cyclists in his car in 2017.

The usual arguments against capital punishment don’t apply here. There’s no question of innocence in the case (although there are plenty of cases where there’s little question the person is innocent—see Richard Glossip). And, presumably, the federal government might be able to scrounge up lethal injection drugs, and not rely on, like, a gallows. Death penalty states have considered poison gas and a shooting, since no pharmaceutical entities are willing to supply the death drugs. Mostly, so far, they garble the executions with random chemical experiments that result in indescribable suffering.

The guy committed a heinous crime that ended and destroyed lives. But what the fuck is the point of trying to impose the death penalty?

The Times: “The Saipov jury faces a stark choice: If the jurors do not unanimously support his execution, he will receive life imprisonment without the chance of release.”

Is it a stark choice? He’ll be shuffled off to a super max prison, where he’ll likely be tortured in solitary confinement for life. He literally presents 0 public threat from here on out. At this point, I present a bigger public safety threat than this guy.