wahming

Does the source matter when I've already pointed out what's wrong with the headline?

Perhaps so. I'm not discussing the morality of death sentences, just the BS clickbait here

It's incelish to point out a headline is exploiting gender politics for clicks? Ok.

I'm not sure you know what an incel is, BTW. Here's the definition for your reference: "a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active."

Now tell me which part of my statement is hostile towards women, or in any way at all related to sexuality. You're merely using the term as a hammer against viewpoints you disagree with.

Biased title. Why should gender matter in law? This is a blatant attempt to tug at emotions. And they try to focus on '31 grams' instead of 'a year's supply'. Take that clickbait back to reddit.

Edit since a lot of people think I'm discussing the sentencing. I'm not, I'm discussing the article itself. My reasoning:

Why I find the headline objectionable:

1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she's female, or how long is it's been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It's not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it's a device to invoke emotions.
2. Choice of wording about the quantity. 'A year's supply' would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).