this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
228 points (98.7% liked)

News

23659 readers
3511 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The state of Missouri on Tuesday executed Brian Dorsey for the 2006 murders of his cousin, Sarah Bonnie, and her husband, Benjamin Bonnie, after an effort to have his life spared failed in recent days.

Dorsey’s time of death was recorded as 6:11 p.m, the Missouri Department of Corrections said in a news release. The method of execution was lethal injection, Karen Pojmann, a spokesperson for the department, said at a news conference, adding it “went smoothly, no problems.”

The execution of Dorsey, 52, occurred hours after the US Supreme Court declined to intervene and about a day after Missouri’s Republican governor denied clemency, rejecting the inmate’s petition – backed by more than 70 correctional officers and others – for a commutation of his sentence to life in prison.

Dorsey and his attorneys cited his remorse, his rehabilitation while behind bars and his representation at trial by attorneys who allegedly had a “financial conflict of interest” as reasons he should not be put to death. But those arguments were insufficient to convince Gov. Mike Parson, who said in a statement carrying out Dorsey’s sentence “would deliver justice and provide closure.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The state should not have the right to end your life if you pose no immediate harm to anyone.

Death isn't justice. It's just death.

[–] Baylahoo 1 points 8 months ago

I strongly agree with you. I'm not against assisted suicide the same way I'm not against it for non incarcerated people. The only time I would agree with nonoptional state enforced death penalty is if the person is such a danger that they can either not be contained or are somehow able to continue to do direct harm despite all efforts of containment. This would be like trying to imprison evil Superman or professor X. Extremes only fiction has been able to create. This person wasn't even close. I am wary of assisted suicide for the incarcerated only because consent isn't a strong value for prison systems and could be faked/forcibly encouraged etc.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I disagree, taking people's lives especially premeditated like this surrenders your rights to our society in my book. And for some people, they don't get to just live in a prison forever.

If the state had the ability to end his life a week before he killed, the minute he was attempting to kill or an hour after he killed would you still say they had no right then?

What has changed in the period of those times to now?

[–] pixeltree 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Either there is an acceptable number of innocent people that can be executed, or the government never makes mistakes. Which is it?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is a poor argument and you know it. It is just a false dichotomy.

The same can be said about imprisonment, homelessness, slave wages/being poor and dying early.

No there is no acceptable amount.

But when people commit crimes that are extremely foul I think there needs to be a finalization. It is wrong to just let them continue

[–] pixeltree 1 points 8 months ago

To let them continue what? Commiting crimes? Guess what, we don't, that's what prison is for. Far better than killing people because your personal opinion is that they need to die

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 9 points 8 months ago

I disagree, taking people’s lives especially premeditated like this surrenders your rights to our society in my book.

That's what prisons are for. They remove you from society for a set period of time (potentially indefinitely) in order to both punish you and protect others.

If the state had the ability to end his life a week before he killed, the minute he was attempting to kill or an hour after he killed would you still say they had no right then?

Flipping through the screenplay of Minority Report

It appears that giving a state official the ability to accuse individuals and summarily execute them for "pre-crime" would be an even worse idea than executing them in retrospect.

But in this case, I believe the fundamental problem with the American death penalty system is in how it overwhelmingly favors punishing the poor and uneducated while sparing the rich and well-connected. In this particular case, the problem appears to be a conflict of interests with his defense attorneys - a problem that would not exist if he'd had enough money to hire competent counsel. But we see time and again, instances of wrongful conviction (also see: The Innocence Project) and disproportionate sentencing particularly towards the mentally incompetent. We've also got a general problem with the executions themselves being beyond cruel, with "failed executions" become an increasingly common occurrence in our deplorably managed incarceration system.

What has changed in the period of those times to now?

Generally speaking, the judiciary recognizes expressions of remorse and efforts at rehabilitation/recompense to be mitigating factors in the wake of a crime (particularly crimes of passion or neglect). But these, too, are heavily weighted by one's personal wealth and political influence. Clemency from the governor/president can and has been outright purchased in the past. Meanwhile individuals who were almost certainly wrongfully convicted - most famously, Cameron Todd Willingham in Texas - have been killed after repeated efforts by the governor to prevent and forestall any attempt to re-litigate the case, entirely for partisan reasons.

Over time, we have accumulated an abundance of evidence to suggest that executions fail to deter criminal behavior, disproportionately affect people of low social status, and do periodically occur to the wrongly convicted.

In light of those facts, we have ample reason to end the practice entirely, at the absolute very least until we can consider the process more reliable and less prone towards political biases.

[–] MetaCubed 9 points 8 months ago

Despite the state's monopoly on violence, they shouldnt have the right to end their citizen's life.

  • On average an execution costs significantly more than life in prison

  • Even with overwhelming evidence, in some cases you can never fully remove the chance that the person being executed has been wrongfully convicted. Idk about you, but even one innocent person getting the death penalty is enough to fully ban in in my opinion.

  • The majority of methods used to administer the death penalty (including in this case) are faux-humane and actually result in the person experiencing horrific, torturous pain while everyone else talks about how humane their death is

Frankly, I'd rather have someone rot in prison for decades

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

On top of what our Underpantsweevil said, when we dehumanize prisoner's, we open the door for other horrific acts by the state. With Nearly 1% of the US population in prison, and 76% of prisoners are forced into labor for pennies per hour, we essentially still have have slave labor in the supposed beacon of democracy.

Taking a step back, when we take all rights away from an individual, we are taking away their humanity. When we no longer view people as people, which we often do to prisoners and the homeless, we also are saying "that could never happen to me because I'm a human".

We shouldn't judge a criminal justice system by how it treats a societies most upstanding citizens, but rather those who have done the worst crimes.

[–] Woozythebear 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because we keep putting innocent people to death because our justice system is extremely corrupt. These people are already locked up and can't do harm in society anymore so maybe we shouldn't kill them if innocent people also get killed.

[–] HighElfMage 3 points 8 months ago

Even if the system isn't corrupt, it's run by humans who make mistakes. It's only a matter of time before one of those mistakes gets an innocent person executed. The only way to execute zero innocent people is to execute zero people.

[–] mriormro 2 points 8 months ago
[–] Wogi 1 points 8 months ago

The state is both the axe and the scales. It decides who to execute and when.

Any discussion of precognitive abilities is irrelevant and fucking ridiculous. Not only can the state not predict murder, it's not particularly good at determining who's responsible.

It can, and has, executed the wrong person. It will continue to do so so long as it has the authority to.

This means that you, innocent of any crime, can be executed by the state should the state get that particular hair up it's ass. Though, weirdly it seems to mostly go that to black men.