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.”
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 actual argument on the death penalty - no matter if morally right or wrong, guilty or innocient, I sure as hell don’t want the state to decide!
A lot of these people believe in god too apparently. They must have such little faith in an afterlife. If you actually believed god will judge evil people with eternal punishment what’s the rush? Let god, the all seeing all knowing judge them. Eternity seems like a long enough sentence. They’re not really acting like they believe it
Apparently their god is no longer omnipotent enough to smite, so they have to do it on his behalf. Weird, because he used to do a lot of smiting a few thousand years ago.
Their God is on meth laying around his heavenly house trailer in his wife beater and he is doing absolutely nothing.
I’m still fascinated by commenting from other platforms in the fediverse. Do you just follow [email protected] on there?
And remember, your state is run by the same motherfuckers who can’t reliably fix a pothole. And anyone expects them to catch the right guy 100% of the time?
The state always has this power. How naive you are.
Really? Then why is Anders Breivik still alive?
Somehow, Norway has not murdered him despite the fact that he murdered dozens of children.
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? Because even without the death penalty, these innocent people you’re referring to would just spend life in prison. I guess that’s acceptable to you?
What if they die in prison? Even if their case gets overturned, they could’ve spent decades in prison. Is that okay to you?
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.
Nothing about what they said implies that this would be ok.
False. He said we shouldn’t execute them because they may be innocent. That implies imprisoning them is okay, unless he thinks we shouldn’t imprison child rapists because they may be innocent.
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…?
And also, losing decades of your life in prison is permanent. You don’t get that time back.
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.
Removed by mod
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?
Removed by mod
He was murdered by the state. That’s what the “death penalty” is. It’s state-sanctioned murder. Barbarous.
We also have state-sanctioned kidnapping, wherein the convicted are taken from their families and held against their will, sometimes for years at a time.
There are many good arguments against the death penalty. I don’t think those that just rephrase what is done in an emotional way are good ones.
And the whole property seizure without due process thing (civil forfeiture) although each of these is somewhat less important than the last.
no, you’re right, especially as nearly every single independent study agrees with your first paragraph.
Prison generates profit first, solves crime… well not second, maybe ninth? Sixteenth? A hundred and twenty eighth?
I mean, you could argue that even if the criminal justice system in the US were massively improved, there would still be no reason to have the death penalty. And yet there could still be good reason to keep imprisonment as a consequence for many types of crimes.
I’m curious what your alternative is.
I don’t think you want to tie getting rid of the death penalty to current inequities and private prison corruption unless in your ideal system it should make a return.
it’s not about “me” or “my” alternatives as I am not an expert. however, look at Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
The kidnapping analogy also applies to the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. They all have governments which detain people against their will.
you have absolutely lost my interest in this conversation if you’re going to flat out state that the Nordic system is identical to the US
But they didn’t say that though?
They pointed out those countries also have jails/prisons that detain people against their will. That isn’t the same as saying the systems are identical.
Murder means an unlawful killing, a lawful killing as in this case is the opposite of a murder. For an example of a true murder, look no further than the actions of the executed man: he killed his cousin and her husband after calling them for help.
He also had a well-documented history of mental illness, which would have been a defense to the death penalty, and an exemplary record as an inmate. More than 70 correctional officers signed the petition begging for him not to be murdered by the state.
And murder is the intentional killing of a human being. The fact that someone signs a piece of paper that says it’s okay doesn’t change the nature of the act.
And murder is the intentional killing of a human being.
I looked it up and every definition website includes that it has to be illegal to be considered murder. By your definition every instance of self-defense is murder.
And murder is the intentional killing of a human being
No it isn’t. Murder is illegal killing of someone else. No reasonable person is going to call you a murderer if you kill someone who is trying to kill you and you reasonably believe you have no other choice.
You’re thinking of the term homicide, which isn’t always murder.
Too bad they couldn’t kill him twice. Seeing as how he’s a double murderer.
Ex ept this smells like they got the wrong guy.
Oh well, more meat for the pile.
When I take control of Missouri, I will make existing as a human in Missouri a crime mandatorily punished by death.
🥱
Something tells me you won’t be so gung-ho about saying that in the real world.
Probably because rational people will start looking at you funny, lol.
Why would he have problems saying this IRL?
Probably because rational people will start looking at you funny, lol.
Not sure what sociopaths you hang out with, but as long as you didn’t actually say it like a lunatic, I don’t think most people would look at you funny.
I’ve said a similar thing many times in the real world. Most people agree the state shouldn’t be deciding who lives and dies, a lot just because they are known to make mistakes and murder innocent people.
Rational people are actually the people against state sanctioned killings usually. Not the other way around.
Yeah, no.
Mention child rapists and they change their tune, real quick.
Nope. That’s just your terminally online experience.
Not really.
People who are in support of the death penalty baffle me. Next to no one is happy about the government right now, and you trust these people with the power to kill whoever they want?
You trust them to imprison whoever they want?
At least imprisonment can be ended.
There’s lots of countries without the death penalty so I don’t think you thought this out.
It’s insane to me that he couldn’t appeal on the basis of not having been provided an attorney with an incentive to work on his case.
This is why rich people so often avoid prison time.
… but poor people don’t.
Sorry, it was implied but felt unfinished.
Ya, it does not sound like he was given a fair trial.
We need to abolish the death penalty in this country. This simply should not be a thing we do.
it went smoothly, no problem
<independent citation needed>
I’m sure this bastard is a shit stain that deserves to be locked away for the rest of his life. Don’t let the state murder people, though. No death penalties, it’s a bad, bad idea that has been outlawed in civil nations. If the US ever wishes to become a civil nation, it needs to outlaw it too.
There are still states that carry out the death sentence by firing squad, and others that still use electrocution.
It may just be Oklahoma if I’m remembering correctly about the firing squad, and I think in these instances, it’s actually the prisoner’s choice, I have no idea how it actually works out.
But still, my point is, the states can’t even agree on a “humane” method of carrying out the death penalty, and some openly choose brutal methods… I can’t imagine a US completely free of the death penalty any time soon unfortunately.
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.”
We don’t actually know that, because lethal injection (needlessly) includes a paralytic. His death could have been slow agony and there would be no way to know. Lethal injection is quite possibly the most brutal method of execution the US has ever employed. If I end up on death row I’ll pray for the firing squad.
Lethal injection is quite possibly the most brutal method of execution the US has ever employed.
Citation needed.
I’m absolutely putting electric chair and execution chamber above it.
The paralytic is the first thing to potentially kill you as you stop breathing. Then the barbiturates also stop you breathing. Then the potassium stops your heart.
None of this would qualify as agonizing in comparison to getting electrocuted or breathing poisonous gas. The worst pain seems to be would be related to getting venous access or potential infiltration from a bad stick. A paralytic and barbiturates are not causing pain.
I don’t agree with the death penalty, but lethal injection isn’t the worst we’ve used.
If performed correctly, without human error, it should kill inmates quickly and painlessly. Yet each of the four main steps involved — securing IV access and then injecting each of the three drugs — has raised medical concerns. Starting an IV can be very difficult on a person who is obese, nervous or cold or who has a history of IV drug use, any one of which is not an unlikely complication in an inmate about to killed. Sodium pentothal is not packaged in solution, meaning the executioners must mix the powder with water just before killing, a somewhat delicate thing to do. The pancuronium bromide, or paralytic, prevents observers from determining if the inmate is properly anesthetized, since he can’t speak or move. Potassium chloride, which stops the heart, creates a burning sensation in the veins and might cause excruciating pain if the inmate is not properly anesthetized. (These concerns, and others, appear in the 1953 British report.)
Anaesthesia during lethal injection is essential to minimise suffering and to maintain public acceptance of the practice. Lethal injection is usually done by sequential administration of thiopental, pancuronium, and potassium chloride. Protocol information from Texas and Virginia showed that executioners had no anaesthesia training, drugs were administered remotely with no monitoring for anaesthesia, data were not recorded and no peer-review was done. Toxicology reports from Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina showed that post-mortem concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than that required for surgery in 43 of 49 executed inmates (88%); 21 (43%) inmates had concentrations consistent with awareness. Methods of lethal injection anaesthesia are flawed and some inmates might experience awareness and suffering during execution.
I mean, it’s all subjective. The electric chair is up there, for sure. I do think I’d rather be gassed. But the thought of being paralyzed, unable to move, while my veins are burning? That’s terrifying. My main question is: why the paralytic? The barbiturates are supposed to put you under, and the potassium is what kills you. The answer is the comfort of the executioners and witnesses.
Those are all valid concerns but still not “the most brutal method of execution the US has ever employed” IMO. That’s what I take issue with. If you look at edge cases for hanging, firing squad, electric chair etc. you’ll find far more brutal executions due to complications.
For most people it’s a quick death. If nitrogen or helium asphyxiation wasn’t available, I’d go for lethal injection.
Lethal injection gets botched badly enough that people notice it 7% of the time, the highest of any execution method. And again, those are the botchings we know about, because the method is designed to hide its failures. We have evidence (which I’ve already cited) that this may happen up to 40% of the time. In contrast, the next highest rate of botchings is gassing with 5%. I stand by my statement (which was hedged). Between how awful the botched deaths might be and the sheer number of them relative to how many are performed, it could well be the most brutal method.
because the method is designed to hide its failures
I think that’s the real issue here. We will not ever know the severity unless they stop administering the paralytic.
I’m not sure why something like a simple barbiturate overdose isn’t enough for these people. The cruelty seems to be part of the point, as if knowing the specific date and time of your death isn’t cruel enough.
is it really that much of a surprise that the most conservative and conservative christian states really love imposing the harshest old testament level punishments on as many people as possible?
forgiveness and rehabilitation? that sounds like something christ would do. fuck that, string him up on the old maple tree in the park so we can make an example out of him.
notice the same states proudly claiming to be pro life lead the nation in infant mortality, post birth mortality, and death sentences. it only shows that “pro life” only emphasizes the developing life, not any of it fully developed.
The death penalty is anti-christian imo. Man’s judgement is fallible and we are all made in the image of God.
And the masses that use religion to abuse others don’t give a shit.
Jesus would also be a raging socialist.
And the [blank] that use [blank] to abuse others don’t give a shit
Anyone can misuse anything to harm someone
Jesus would also be a raging socialist.
Jesus was more or less apolitical in the gospel (e.g. “render unto caesar what is caesar’s” )
He clearly states that to whom much is given much will be required though ergo almsgiving is a critical part of the faith.
He may have been apolitical for his time (you’d have to ask him personally to know), but many teachings align with socialism. It just relies on the individual to do it themselves instead of being state enforced. “you do you but also heaven won’t accept you if you don’t share wealth”. Final judgement would stand in for corporeal laws in this case. When people don’t subscribe to that and it actively lets people suffer, teachings might not be enough.
It just relies on the individual to do it themselves instead of being state enforced.
Pretty much this. Christ’s teachings focus on prayer, fasting and almsgiving at a personal and corporate (church) level regardless of which government is in power.
Shows how important branding is.
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.
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.
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?
Either there is an acceptable number of innocent people that can be executed, or the government never makes mistakes. Which is it?
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
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
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our country has gotten grim over the last decade, and if you don’t see it, that’s scary.
Conservatism has been on the rise. Conservatism is death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Missouri
Spoiler, it’s illegal
You just gotta wait till it commits 3 felonies.
I heard of this one. I can’t help but think that this guy was just killed because it will be cheaper in the long run to excute him rather then pay to keep him in prison. I dont think this was about mercy, rehabilitation or justice it was about profit and the value of human lives.
It’s mostly about right-wing virtue signaling.
A couple of decades ago I listened to a story about a guy who was ultimately saved from death row; when the family of the victim was interviewed, one of them said that she didn’t agree with the decision, that even after being told that this guy had been proven not to be the murderer, she didn’t care, someone had to pay for killing her sister.
That’s when I learned that the death penalty is not at all about justice. It’s revenge.
iirc execution is more expensive than keeping an I mate for life. how? idk, that’s just what I remember
Execution sentences have more legal process than life sentences (appeals, etc), where life sentences usually get a basic appeals process unless new evidence is found and you can convince someone to take your case and petition on your behalf, where capital cases have mandatory appeals and often involve higher courts’ and government officials’ time. Add to that the fact that it often takes literal decades from conviction to execution and death row having often higher staffing requirements including (ironically) a suicide watch, the extra costs add up.
So basically you have someone effectively serving a life sentence, plus extra court costs, plus the time it takes for the governor to consider your clemency appeal (even it if it only a few minutes), plus extra staffing, plus the cost of the execution itself.
Karen Pojmann, I hope someone finds you smooth and no problem in a dark alley.
“Hey, now don’t kill anyone, or else we’ll kill you.”
It really is a weird take. Also, our justice system routinely jails people who are innocent. This reason is why I oppose the death penalty in most cases.
murica
ITT: Users who regularly advocate for actual physical violence and bloodshed over differences of opinion in the name of the “Paradox of Tolerance”, suddenly clutching their pearls in defense of a literal murderer and rapist.
