Brian Dorsey Deserved to Die

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.

www.cnn.com/2024/04/09/us/…/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.

neoproterozoic,

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

Flax_vert,

Everyone deserves death tbh

Tramort,

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.

franglais,

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.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

Would spending the rest of his life behind bars not accomplish the same thing?

franglais,

If that were certain, yes. But the prison costs a fortune, and the people in charge have a terrible habit of giving parole.

FooBarrington,

A death sentence costs more than imprisonment for life.

franglais,

Oh, I’m sure that depends on your locality, I reckon stonings in Saudi Arabia are pretty cheap 😉

FooBarrington,

You can’t have cheaper executions without removing safeguards which are supposed to stop innocent people from getting executed. But I have this strange feeling that doesn’t really matter to you :)

franglais,

When there is absolutely no doubt, that a person has raped, I have no problem with castration, when there is no doubt a person has murdered, i have no problem with thr death penalty. Perhaps we should send all the “rehabilitated” convicts to live next door to you? How would you feel?

FooBarrington,

As of right now, the US has many layers that are supposed to keep innocent people off death row, yet they still kill more than 4% innocent people. There is absolutely no way to save money on executions without increasing this number.

Since you’d like to kill people, maybe we should just execute you? How would you feel?

franglais,

Ultimately, I’m not interested in the financial element of protecting society, whatever the cost of assuring rapists and murders is money well spent, but this is off topic, going back to OP’s original question, yes murders deserve to die, I share an unpopular opinion, so be it.

FooBarrington,

Yes, let’s save the innocent by letting the state murder them instead! That will show those murderers.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

The death penalty is cheap in Saudi Arabia because they enact it against people who don’t deserve to die. Surely you aren’t advocating for murdering your countrymen for being gay or trans or something, right? Because that would be evil.

franglais,

Don’t be stupid

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

I’m not the one tacitly endorsing Saudi Arabian “justice”

franglais,

Biblical justice, if you prefer, eye for an eye.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

The reason the death penalty is so expensive is because we need to be extremely damn sure that we’re taking a proverbial eye from the right person. Around 4% of people sentenced to death are later found to be innocent. The only ways to make it cheaper are to remove the appeals process which inevitably leads to innocent people dying, or to raise the standard of evidence required for a death penalty to a point where we essentially abolish it anyway.

callouscomic,

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.

surewhynotlem,

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…

Melkath,

So keeping him locked up like an animal with no freedom forever is the better option?

What a barbaric mindset.

Cool that our government is killing all sorts of everyone all over the world, but kill a murderer/rapist in your back yard? Naw, couldn't possibly do that...

Gigan,
@Gigan@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, maybe he did deserve to die. But I’ll always oppose the death penalty on principle.

Melkath,

I oppose wasting resources on prisons and guards on people who will never see the outside of the prison on principle.

Gigan,
@Gigan@lemmy.world avatar

So you want to kill people to save money? That’s a dangerous precedent.

Melkath, (edited )

My number one priority for America is restoring a liberal presence in government.

My number two priority for America is reducing the Pentagon budget, and stop American weapons and soldiers from murdering impoverished people overseas.

My number three priority for America is to reduce incarceration and make it less lucrative the for-profit prisons system to grow and spread and create more excuses to incarcerate people/saddle people with invasive probation programs.

My number four and five priorities are to reduce the cost of healthcare/increase access to proper healthcare, and to make home ownership possible for 25-30 year olds again. These only fall to 4 and 5 only because I think the first 3 are needed to free up the funds and lobbying-hours to make them possible.

What isn't a priority for me is loading up the prison warden with millions of dollars a year for a term of 60 years to keep a murderer/rapist locked in a concrete box because my bleeding heart cant stomach the idea of just pulling the trigger. Money that he will spend 5% on the actual inmate, and 95% on lobbying to lower the bar to put more people in his jail so he can rinse and repeat.

Carroll O'Conner did a movie way back when where his character testified against a murderer who after decades of legal battle was executed. He had this great monologue where his character was asked "So how does it feel now that justice has finally been served?" and he said something to the effect of "it doesn't feel like justice was served. That man shouldn't have and couldn't have been released back into society, but we were stuck hemming and hawing for decades. This man sat in a cell knowing that he was eventually going to die, missing freedom he knew he would never have again. If we delivered compassionate justice, the moment he was found guilty, we would have told him that we were giving him one more chance, we would have walked him out front of the jail, we would have let him go, we would have let him take a few steps where he could feel at ease, at peace, looking forward to his freedom, and we would have shot him in the back of the head. Lights out. Story over. Problem solved. Compassionate justice delivered."

I think there was a metric fuck ton of wisdom in that monologue.

Edit: Also want to respond directly to "you want to kill people to save money?" Fuck no and fuck you for putting those words in my mouth.

I want to stop making money off of killing people (Biden/Israel/The Pentagon Budget) and I want to stop making money off of incarcerating people. Locking them up. Paying people to dominate them for decades.

If their crimes are that grave, they need to be put down. And if the governor calls a stay of execution at the Nth hour after 30 years of death row, that inmates life ended 30 years before that moment.

We need our cops to do better, and this 30-60 years of hemming and hawing bullshit do nothing but encourage cops to falsely convict people and sleep well knowing they are creating a job for their overpaid police academy drop out cousin who ended up a prison guard.

If the stakes are life in prison/death, preserve the moral consequences for crooked cops. Kill the people they decreed did not deserve dignified life, and hold them to it when it is proven that individual was murdered to feed their power trips and greed.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

Executing someone costs significantly more than incarcerating them for life. The majority of that cost is in appeals, because we like to give people the best possible chance of not being wrongly executed. At least 4% of people sentenced to death were actually innocent. The only way to reduce the cost of the death penalty would be to take away that appeals process, trading innocent lives for money, which is usually considered “evil.”

Melkath,

If only that same energy went into someone not being wrongfully CONVICTED.

Gotta be convicted to be executed.

Thousands of Americans get wrongfully convicted regularly.

Do they get justice?

No.

Again, raise the bar for conviction, swiftly execute the judgement, and burn a cop who frames an innocent on the stake.

That means death is sentenced with the highest of stakes, and when it is sentenced, do it.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

“Raising the bar for conviction” is a naive mindset that betrays a lack of understanding of the system. Nobody is sentenced to death without the judge and jury being just as certain of their guilt as they were of Brian Dorsey’s. Raising the bar to a height that would ensure no innocents are ever executed would necessitate the abolishment of the death penalty altogether.

But besides the “any law that can be used to rightfully execute a guilty person can be abused to wrongfully execute an innocent” argument, the death penalty is still a barbaric practice that the richest country on earth can afford to go without. Not every person will be rehabilitated, but I’m not convinced that not every person can be, and I will never be convinced that the State is a good enough judge of character to decide who is and isn’t capable of being rehabilitated.

Melkath,

Honestly, I cant follow you at all.

Your loosy goosy circular logic makes no sense to me.

I am receiving from you that "because of how the system is" we cant do anything about false conviction, so we shouldn't do anything to address false conviction, and because of that, we cant use the death penalty, but its totally cool to lock people up for terms of 60+ years. Don't address false convictions, end peoples lives in a far more cruel fashion but act like its okay since it wasn't the death penalty?

No, address false convictions and act on the proper punishment for those convictions.

death penalty is still a barbaric practice

Life in prison is far more barbaric of a practice than the death penalty.

the richest country on earth

People need to stop saying this. America is not the richest country on Earth. America holds the richest 1% on Earth. Institutions like prolonged incarceration are one of the key institutions that enrich that 1 percent.

In the mean time, incarceration for petty offenses and overly invasive probation programs are bankrupting the poorest of Americans, and those high profile life sentences give the prisons the funds to lobby to expand incarceration for petty offenses and widen probation programs that keep people at the revolving door at the jails/prisons spinning.

the State is a good enough judge of character to decide who is and isn’t capable of being rehabilitated

So your argument is that people can be rehabilitated, but the State isnt even capable of deciding who can be rehabilitated, let alone actually rehabilitate them... so lock em up, out of sight, out of mind?

The part of your argument that is very valid is that correct, incarceration in America is in no way shape or form a rehabilitation effort. It is entirely punitive. It is taking a person who has been deemed guilty of a crime, it is starving them/giving them improper nutrition, it is giving that person deplorable access to healthcare, it is striping all comfort out of that persons life, and it is subjecting them to horrible people who are trained and chomping at the bit to spend all day every day inflicting severe psychological torture and domination on that person.

I hear your argument, I consider your argument, I reject your argument, I consider your argument short sighted and cowardly.

starman2112, (edited )
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

So your argument is that people can be rehabilitated, but the State isnt even capable of deciding who can be rehabilitated,

My argument is that judges, juries, and prosecutors are incapable of knowing who can and can’t be rehabilitated when they sentence someone. I believe that anyone can be rehabilitated, and I don’t believe that the state knows who will be, so I’m against the state being allowed to kill people that it thinks won’t be.

Let alone situations like Cameron Todd Willingham’s death. He was 100%, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty of setting the fire that killed his three children. Eyewitnesses said he was acting suspicious the night of the fire, and professional firefighters assured the jury that it was physically impossible for the fire to have started accidentally. And then after he was killed, new evidence showed that actually, those firefighters were wrong. There was no solid evidence that he killed his children.

You cannot make a system that allows for the execution of Brian Dorseys but not Cameron Todd Willinghams. You either allow the possibility of killing innocent people, or you don’t kill people at all. I know which I’m in favor of.

Melkath,

I believe that anyone can be rehabilitated

I will reiterate, incarceration in America is in no way shape or form a rehabilitation effort. It is entirely punitive. It is taking a person who has been deemed guilty of a crime, it is starving them/giving them improper nutrition, it is giving that person deplorable access to healthcare, it is striping all comfort out of that persons life, and it is subjecting them to horrible people who are trained and chomping at the bit to spend all day every day inflicting severe psychological torture and domination on that person.

So it doesn't matter if they can be rehabilitated or not. American jails and prisons vehemently profess that they do not rehabilitate, they punish.

As for Cameron Todd Willingham, so a bunch of corrupted firefighters who were in bed with corrupt cops falsely got a man convicted of triple homicide. Actually give a consequence to those firefighters and cops. I guarantee you he would still be in jail today and no new evidence would have been recovered if he were sentenced to life in prison.

Beyond that, Glynn Simmons was falsely convicted of murder, so we put him in a box and tortured him for 48 years.

You think he is going to have any meaningful life now?

Now, after he has been resoundingly broken down as a human being who likely cannot function without a billy club in his back is going to be thrown out on the street with a "sorry", and track record for people who get exonerated after prolonged sentences, they file for reparations, they win fat judgements, and then the police and city officials come down on them like a ton of bricks to either kill them, make them kill themselves, or get them back in a cell on another framing charge before the check clears.

We put all our effort into keeping people locked up in boxes, tortured, and alive to that we can skip actually holding the wrongdoer cops (and in your case firefighters) accountable, and we encourage them to keep doing a shitty/corrupt job.

You cannot make a system that allows for the execution of Brian Dorseys but not Cameron Todd Willinghams.

Alright then, just throw up your arms, keep encouraging cops to fuck up/frame people, and pat yourself on the back because, again, as far as you are concerned, out of sight out of mind as long as there isn't a death on my conscious. Decades of torture, that's fine, as long as you don't need to see it.

You cant kneecap the pursuit of actual justice because you want to keep corrupt cops isolated from consequence.

starman2112, (edited )
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

Alright then, just throw up your arms, keep encouraging cops to fuck up/frame people, and pat yourself on the back because, again, as far as you are concerned, out of sight out of mind as long as there isn’t a death on my conscious. Decades of torture, that’s fine, as long as you don’t need to see it.

What is controversial about the idea that we shouldn’t kill people? How does wanting to abolish the death penalty in any way equate to saying we should encourage cops to fuck up and frame people?

Obviously I’m in favor of more widespread changes to the criminal justice system to make it more focused on rehabilitation than retribution, since the latter has proven itself ineffective at dealing with crime. But until then, one step we could take is letting innocent people out, regardless of how long they’ve been in. Do you actually think it better to kill someone who’s been wrongfully imprisoned for decades than to let them go?

Obviously I’m in favor of reforming the police structure. What makes you think I don’t want those cops and firefighters held responsible? You’ve taken an incredibly uncharitable interpretation of my views and argued against it instead of actually addressing the things I believe. I shouldn’t have to say “the entire justice system needs reformed” in my comments about ways that we should reform the justice system. I think my assertion that any criminal can be rehabilitated implies that we should change from retribution to rehabilitation.

Melkath,

You know what?

You're right.

In this exchange, I have taken stances I that defy my core principles.

I have also made these statements with dire misunderstandings.

I was under the impression that an inmate for a year cost the public trust over a million dollars.

While MaxSec might err higher, Google say it's more like 45k. Also, the longest term of an exonerated person is 50 years, not the 60 or 70 I guessed.

The above highlights I was confident on points I was incorrect about.

Stop killing people. That's my prime directive.

If we have common ground that we incarcerate people who shouldn't be incarcerated, we don't take sufficient care of the incarcerated, and the judicial, enforcement, and penal systems need to be checked so that they are performing the public service, and not making money for the jail/prison owners, we have common ground, and your viewpoints are more apt to achieve the future I think we all should be working towards.

Good talk.

yesman,

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.

ChonkyOwlbear,

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.

KISSmyOSFeddit,

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.

wintermute_oregon,

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.

IphtashuFitz, (edited )

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.

wintermute_oregon,

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

I agree with you.

Weird.

wintermute_oregon,

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has drawn criticism for denying clemency and presiding over the execution of Michael Samra (pictured) on May 16, 2019, one day after issuing a statement calling Alabama a pro-life state and declaring life “precious” and “sacred.”

The article is from 2019 but it’s relevant.

wintermute_oregon,

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Saying life is sacred the day before you refuse to save someone’s life is hypocritical.

If life is so sacred you will protect it at all costs and if you don’t then you don’t believe life is that sacred.

wintermute_oregon,

That’s a child’s life. It hasn’t done wrong. The adult did wrong.

I get the logic. I just don’t agree with it. I think life is sacred but I don’t have an issue with abortion.

Since I’m against the death penalty does that make my a hypocrite ?

It’s why I don’t like to link the two. Otherwise pro-choice people should be pro-death mentally. The two are very different.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

I’m pointing out that they are saying life is sacred but they mean only some lives are sacred.

Trying to reverse that doesn’t make any sense and it’s part of the circular reasoning that you seem to have mastered.

LibertyLizard,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

The difference is that I don’t think most pro-choice people think life is sacred. For myself, I believe the killing is primarily wrong due to the suffering it causes, and also due to preventing further joy in that person’s life.

Abortions don’t cause much, if any suffering, and the effects on future joy are ambiguous. I don’t think the available evidence in this framework supports banning abortions, which itself clearly does cause suffering.

In contrast, if you believe life is sacred, it’s very strange to then decide to defile or destroy this sacred thing for any reason. The sacred is not subject to this sort of cost and benefit analysis.

wintermute_oregon,

I think all life is sacred. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to terminated at some point but we need to do it only when necessary. I grew up Catholic. The host is sacred but we still ate it. It just means you treat it with respect.

LibertyLizard,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

If you can respectfully execute, why can’t you respectfully abort? I don’t see much difference. The point is that if life is fundamentally sacred, why is guilt or innocence even a factor in that sacredness?

wintermute_oregon,

I’m not against abortion.

LibertyLizard,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

Fair enough, I misread above. But the point still stands—I think you can link the two for pro-life but it doesn’t hold up for pro-choice.

Also, you got some spicy downvoters lol. Not sure what you said or who is even in this 8-day old thread besides us. Looks like it’s every comment of yours… did you piss someone off enough that they sent a bot squad after you?

wintermute_oregon,

Yes. There is a guy who has multiple account that follows me around to downvote me. He has about 12 accounts but typically uses three

pingveno,

Yeah, this is why I don't agree with capital punishment. Sure, many victim's families will want the perp to die. That doesn't mean we as a society have to be a place where we grant the wishes of blood lust. It doesn't make the world a better place, just a bloodier place.

livus,
livus avatar

It obviously doesn't deter crime.

The US is an outlier on the death penalty. Most western countries don't have it, but we don't have higher homicide rates.

wintermute_oregon,

That’s always been an excuse in America.

I’ve never one though, I’d murder this person but shucks, they’d execute me. I just don’t think about killing my fellow man in any serious way.

AFKBRBChocolate,

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.

JeSuisUnHombre,

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.

AFKBRBChocolate,

Yep, that’s how I feel as well.

corroded,

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.

AFKBRBChocolate,

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Does killing him bring back the people he killed?

paskalivichi,

Does ‘rehabilitating’ him bring them back?

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

He committed horrible crimes but killing someone for murdering people doesn’t help.

paskalivichi,

Neither does letting a killer walk free, who could potentially lose his shit and kill again.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Anyone can lose their shit and kill.

FaceDeer,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

Is anyone advocating letting him walk free? This is a false dichotomy.

iAmTheTot,
iAmTheTot avatar

I haven't seen anyone advocating for letting him "walk free".

livus,
livus avatar

Those aren't the only options.

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

Does imprisoning him? At what point does this line of thinking just reduce down to “we shouldn’t punish anyone for anything”?

LibertyLizard,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

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.

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6136fc7d-bd4f-4e82-b14d-890ad9c75b26.png

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

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?

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

I gave you the advise to seek therapy if you think poisoning a puppy is the answer to any problem.

muse,
@muse@fedia.io avatar

Damn, Satansmaggotycumfart had receipts and everything. Guess you're just a hypocritical piece of shit.

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

How am I hypocritical?

FaceDeer,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

The state cannot commit murder.

That's a really bad line of reasoning.

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

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.

hakase,

If you murder a murderer you’re not reducing the amount of murderers.

If you kill two or more you are.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Touché.

corroded,

An executioner is not a murderer if the condemned is guilty.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Just because the murder is state-sanctioned does not mean it’s not a murder.

hakase, (edited )

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Do you believe any and all state-sanctioned murders are justified and legal?

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

all state-sanctioned murders

No such thing.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

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?

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Are you telling me Ukraine and Palestine civilians aren’t being killed?

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.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Ukraine is being invaded, it’s not a war front.

muse,
@muse@fedia.io avatar

Holocaust denying hypocrite. Got it.

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

How poor is your reading comprehension to come to that conclusion and have you considered remedial courses at a community college? It’s never too late.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

What about you calling a country that’s being invaded ‘an active warfront?’

FaceDeer,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

You think imprisonment isn't a punishment?

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

Does imprisonment bring back the people he killed?

FaceDeer,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

Does anything bring them back? I don't see what your point is.

PP_BOY_,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

Thats… the point… of my original reply.

It’s a pointlessly reductive philosophy towards justice.

starman2112,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

No. So let’s avoid as much needless bloodshed as possible.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
  • PowerRangers
  • magazineikmin
  • ethstaker
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Youngstown
  • modclub
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • mdbf
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • DreamBathrooms
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • Durango
  • vwfavf
  • InstantRegret
  • everett
  • cubers
  • Leos
  • osvaldo12
  • tacticalgear
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • All magazines
    •