Yesterday, Brian Dorsey was executed for a crime he committed in 2006. By all accounts, during his time in prison, he became remorseful for his actions and was a “model prisoner,” to the point that multiple corrections officers backed his petition for clemency.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/09/us/brian-dorsey-missouri-execution-tuesday/index.html
In general, the media is painting him as the victim of a justice system that fails to recognize rehabilitation. I find this idea disgusting. Brian Dorsey, in a drug-induced stupor, murdered the people who gave him shelter. He brutally ended the life of a woman and her husband, and (allegedly) sexually assaulted her corpse. There is an argument that he had ineffective legal representation, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he is guilty.
While I do believe that he could have been released or had his sentence converted to life in prison, and he could have potentially been a model citizen, this would have been a perversion of justice. Actions that someone takes after committing a barbaric act do not undo the damage that was done. Those two individuals are still dead, and he needed to face the ramifications for his actions.
Rehabilitation should not be an option for someone who committed crimes as depraved as he did. Quite frankly, a lethal injection was far less than what he deserved, given the horror he inflicted on others. If the punishment should fit the crime, then he was given far more leniency than was warranted.
Actions that someone takes after committing a barbaric act do not undo the damage that was done.
Neither does his death.
Those two individuals are still dead, and he needed to face the ramifications for his actions.
Which no one denies. Th ramifications should have been life in prison without a chance for parole.
Which no one denies. Th ramifications should have been life in prison without a chance for parole
Agreed. The death penalty should be revoked in my opinion. It’s an archaic penalty.
While it apparently didn’t happen in this case, there are a number of examples of people who have gone to death row, been executed, then proven to have been innocent after all. That’s a huge reason for me as to why the death penalty should be done away with.
That’s is one of my big issues. Another issue is it’s just vengeance. The system should be about justice.
I don’t think executing people makes society safer. I do not think it deters crime.
I agree with you.
Weird.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Or just chuck this up to I’m more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative.
One thing that puzzles me is how many religious people agree with the death penalty.
I’m not a fan of linking abortion to capital punishment. The two are different. I’m pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Pro-life people justify it by the actions of the murderer are the reason for his death. Since Jesus was about forgiveness. Seems like prison should be fine. Eye for an eye doesn’t mean you have to execute the person. I often see that quoted for the death penalty.
I don’t oppose the death penalty because nobody deserves to be killed. I oppose it because our justice system isn’t up to determining who does and who doesn’t.
There are too many arbitrary factors that make the difference between death penalty and life. The race, sex, and gender of the victim and the accused; the political ambition of the prosecutor; the geographic location of the crime; and the resources of the accused.
And this wonderful system wastes millions and millions of dollars that could address some of the root causes of crime and violence.
Executing him accomplishes nothing. Families of victims have long said that executions did not make them feel better. In some cases, they have campaigned to stop executions. More death solves nothing, and we as humans can and should be better than that.
The death penalty is wrong. Period. There are always other solutions. That’s where the justice system fails.
Did killing him bring them back? No? Then what’s the benefit?
It better be a pretty big fuckin benefit if you’re okay with our government having the authority to kill citizens. Cuz you know, the government can totally be trusted to not abuse power and authority…
Does killing him bring back the people he killed?
Does imprisoning him? At what point does this line of thinking just reduce down to “we shouldn’t punish anyone for anything”?
If you murder a murderer you’re not reducing the amount of murderers.
But last time I talked to you you were advocating the poisoning of a puppy so at least you are consistent.
An executioner is not a murderer if the condemned is guilty.
Just because the murder is state-sanctioned does not mean it’s not a murder.
Who said anything about murdering him? The state cannot commit murder. There’s an argument to be made that Dorsey did not deserve the death penalty (I don’t think he did), but this is a dangerously reductive view.
But last time I talked to you you were misconstrueing my argument about society’s responsibility to preserve its safety, so I suppose you are too.
My guy if you want to hash it out in that thread again, go there, but to recap:
An untrained, unfenced pit bull is a massive threat to both safety and property. The OP of that thread expressed legitimate concerns w/r/t both and was looking for advice on how to stop it. I gave two options, with emphasis that the most harm-reductive one be taken first. What exactly was your advice, again? That the OP spend several thousand dollars reinforcing their yard’s fencing to keep their neighbor’s pit out?
I gave you the advise to seek therapy if you think poisoning a puppy is the answer to any problem.
Punishments should only be doled out in the event that the benefits of the punishment outweigh the harm caused. In many cases, this does not pencil out because punishment does nothing good by itself. But of course it will depend on the specific case and the indirect effects.
Imprisonment does have some indirect benefits. It may keep criminals from committing further crimes while they are imprisoned. It can also be a deterrent to other criminals, though this depends on other factors as well. Hypothetically, it could also be used to reeducate and reform criminals so that they do not re-offend, though most current prison systems actually do the opposite of this. Finally, it may bring a small measure of satisfaction to the victims or their families. However, this effect is likely small relative to the harm done to the prisoner.
Overall I am forced to conclude that the current prison system is not very effective and may do more harm than good, especially when looking at the economic costs. However, I think it should be replaced with another system rather than immediately abolished, mainly due to the risk that a release from deterrence would cause a crime wave and a reversal to the broken system.
So what would such a system look like? Well, perhaps if we focus on the perceived benefits of the current system, we can devise one that does the same things more effectively.
In terms of deterrence, research shows that likelihood of the penalty matters more than the severity, although I can also hypothesize that the penalty must be sufficient to offset the rewards of crime as well. Therefore our new justice system should be swift, accurate, and thorough so that criminals are subject to it quickly and with certainty immediately after offending. Any penalties levied must be large enough to feel punitive, but no more than the minimum required to provide the adequate disincentive. If we can quickly capture most criminals, inhumane penalties will not be needed.
In terms of preventing reoffending, we should pursue evidence driven approaches that can reduce recidivism. Job training, mental health and drug treatments may be necessary, but in general this is where my knowledgeable is the weakest. Criminals should be removed from the environment where they can offend until such time as rehabilitation has been completed. The severity of the crime can determine the dose of rehabilitation, with more serious crimes requiring greater certainty in prevention before full release.
Finally, we want to do right by the victims. This can be the most challenging aspect because for some crimes, they will never be made whole, and in some cases, interaction with the offender can cause further harm. I propose a menu of options, to be selected by the victim or their survivors, which require labor or restitution for the benefit of the victims.
Such a system does not yet exist, and would be fairly different from our current one. Therefore, some experimentation is in order, with programs that work expanded, and those that don’t shuttered. Over time we should be able to create a system that is better at prevention, better for victims, and better for offenders. But only if we can let go of our medieval ideas of justice in favor of this more rational approach.
Yes, maybe he did deserve to die. But I’ll always oppose the death penalty on principle.
I find it hard to say that the value to society of killing him was greater than the value he provided cutting hair at the prison.
Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-JRR Tolkien
Everyone deserves death tbh
It comes down to what you feel the purpose of our justice system is, including capital punishment.
My personal opinion is that, despite its name, capital punishment shouldn’t be thought of as a punishment. I feel that we should use the death penalty or life in prison when we feel that a person can’t ever be allowed back into society, and it’s more of a societal judgement which of those two measures we take.
I think in all cases, if we could heal a person so that they’d never repeat a crime again, that’s the better course. The reality is that most really horrible crimes stem from some kind of mental illness. If we could rehabilitate the people, it seems like that’s better for everyone.
Yes. When I think of a just system it’s more like…
Person commits crime and goes to rehabilitation, if they can’t be rehabilitated then they are imprisoned or exiled, if they are still a threat there that’s when it may become necessary to execute. It’s not a punishment, it’s a last resort for the safety of others.
Yep, that’s how I feel as well.
My feeling is that our justice system exists to do exactly what the name implies: to enact justice. I think where my thinking differs from a lot of people is in what I consider “justice” to be.
Sometimes, justice is rehabilitating an offender. If someone steals so that they can pawn the stolen items and get some money for food, then of course they deserve rehabilitation. Give them an opportunity for an education or to learn a useful skill so that they have a better chance of being able to support themselves without stealing.
On the other hand, sometimes justice is punitive, and sometimes death is an appropriate punishment. I think it ultimately comes down to if your own personal moral code says that everyone deserves a second chance. I personally believe that not everyone does.
I hear what you’re saying, and I think the place where you and I diverge is on the type of crime and what its roots are. Most vanilla-type crimes, like theft or simple assault, and committed by people of sound mind who are assholes or just don’t care much about other people. Manslaughter can be that, especially the heat of the moment stuff. But the really horrible things - the things that tend to put people on death row - take someone who has severe issues.
The guy who kills a family, cuts the bodies into pieces, and eats parts of them, isn’t just a jerk; there’s something seriously wrong with him. So I don’t necessarily feel like those people deserve retribution as much as they need fixing.
Of course not all of them can be fixed, but to me that’s the first priority.
Baring any miracle advances in mental health treatment, there is only one way to guarantee that he doesn’t do the same thing again, and I support all normal people’s right to feel, and actually be safe, in their homes and communities.
