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.”

  • deft@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    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?

    • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

    • pixeltree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

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

      • deft@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

    • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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.

    • MetaCubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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