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 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.
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?
He committed horrible crimes but killing someone for murdering people doesn’t help.
Neither does letting a killer walk free, who could potentially lose his shit and kill again.
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.
If you murder a murderer you’re not reducing the amount of murderers.
If you kill two or more you are.
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.
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.
Every government is imperfect.
No human being should be executed by the state.
There is no difference in justice by locking them up for life, and more importantly it costs less, and can be undone if an injustice is later identified.
