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.
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 kill two or more you are.
Touché.
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.
That’s literally what it means, actually.
You don’t get to randomly redefine words because you don’t like what they mean for whatever reason.
Do you believe any and all state-sanctioned murders are justified and legal?
No such thing.
Sorry to invoke Godwin’s law here, but are you telling me that during the Holocaust that the Jewish people weren’t murdered?
Are you telling me Ukraine and Palestine civilians aren’t being killed?
Depends. There were plenty of interpersonal killings of Jews during the early stages of the Holocaust that would easily count as murder. The state-sanctioned death camps were not murders, even if it’s also true that murders took place within the camps.
Of course not. Being killed is not being murdered. There are Ukrainians and Palestinians being both killed and murdered right now, but no western understanding of the word “murder” can accurately be applied to an active war front.
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.
deleted by creator
How am I hypocritical?
deleted by creator
That’s a really bad line of reasoning.
How? Murder is interpersonal, premeditated manslaughter. There’s no interpersonal relationship between the state and an hypothetical victim. The state can kill unjustly (which I believe applies to Dorsey), but it cannot be guilty of murder.
You think imprisonment isn’t a punishment?
Does imprisonment bring back the people he killed?
Does anything bring them back? I don’t see what your point is.
Thats… the point… of my original reply.
It’s a pointlessly reductive philosophy towards justice.
No. So let’s avoid as much needless bloodshed as possible.
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.