Missouri executes Brian Dorsey for 2006 double murder after mercy bid backed by 72 correctional officers

https://lemmy.world/post/14123388

Missouri executes Brian Dorsey for 2006 double murder after mercy bid backed by 72 correctional officers - Lemmy.World

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 [https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/07/us/brian-dorsey-missouri-execution-death-row/index.html] 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.”

This is what happens when you give the state the power of life and death over its citizens. Even the people who make up the low levels of power in the state have no actual voice when it comes to the state committing legally-sanctioned murder.
The death penalty is appropriate for child rapists.
And you believe you can prove every single time beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused child rapist you are putting to death is not innocent of the crime? How would you be able to do so?

Are you trying to argue that it’s okay to imprison innocent people but it’s not okay to execute them?

What if they die in prison?

Nothing about what they said implies that this would be ok.

Problem with homicide is that it’s final. Someone falsely imprisoned has the chance of being let go. Anyone who is killed immediately loses that option.

Okay. So it’s alright to punish innocent people as long as it’s not permanent?

Unless of course they die in prison, in which case…?

That implies imprisoning them is okay,

No it doesn’t.

So it’s alright to punish innocent people as long as it’s not permanent?

Nope.

Okay.

Then we shouldn’t imprison people because they might be innocent just like we shouldn’t execute them because they might be innocent.

Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

You can let someone out of prison. You can’t unkill them.
What about people who die in prison?

They generally do so when they’re older than the people who get executed for the same accused crime. Meaning there’s a chance they’ll have a life outside of prison if they’re innocent.

Again, you can’t unkill someone. You can, however, not intentionally kill them.

Meaning there’s a chance they’ll have a life outside of prison if they’re innocent.

Yeah, but what about those who don’t get that chance?

What about them? They’re not intentionally killed.
So? They still lose their lives.
You really don’t understand the difference between an innocent person potentially dying in prison and an innocent person definitely dying in prison?
Of course I do. The end result is still the same for those who die in prison.

Again- potential vs. definite. Why is potential just as bad as definite to you?

There’s the potential you will get hit by a car every time you walk down the street. Isn’t that potential better than someone intentionally driving into you?

Because either way an innocent person is losing their life because of the state.

I just wanted you to admit that it’s acceptable to imprison potentially innocent people for life.

I said no such thing. Do not lie.

Of course it is not acceptable to imprison potentially innocent people for life. That’s why you give them many chances to appeal. Do you think that I believe people should not be given chances to appeal or something?

And, again, they only have the potential of being in prison for life. If their appeals have been exhausted but new evidence arises, special circumstances can be made.

People with the death penalty who have exhausted all of their appeals get killed.

Also, there is no restitution given to innocent people who were killed. Innocent people who were imprisoned and get let free get restitution.

Now, please answer me:

There’s the potential you will get hit by a car every time you walk down the street. Isn’t that potential better than someone intentionally driving into you?

Of course it is not acceptable to imprison potentially innocent people for life.

But that’s what happens when we imprison people for life. Inevitably, someone innocent is going to end up there. Just like with the death penalty, right?

You’re typing an essay because you don’t realize how you’ve succumbed to doublethink.

I guess that’s why Anders Breivik wasn’t imprisoned for life.

Now please answer my question.

Just checked his Account. 2 Days old, lots of negative Comment-ratio. Most likely a Troll.

You’re ignoring that the state should rectify unacceptable situations. With wrongful imprisonment, the state can rectify the situation and compensate the innocent. With the death penalty, this is never possible. And even if such a rectification is not done, at least the prisoner was still able to live somewhat of a life.

This makes life imprisonment infintely more acceptable that the death penalty. There’s no doublethink in admitting there are different gradations of unacceptable.