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.”
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 but it’s not okay to execute them, which you did.
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:
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.
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.
I guess that’s why Anders Breivik wasn’t imprisoned for life.
Now please answer my question.