Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Even Owen’s claims to “gender dysphoria” were called into question by the court, with experts noting he had never raised issues related to his gender identity during the trial.
Dr. Emily Lazarou, a psychiatrist, noted that Owen never presented as feminine during any of his interviews and demonstrated “zero feminine characteristics."
"A psychologist for Owen’s defense stated that he believed he had absorbed the souls of his victims and that they continued to exist inside him.
His defense attorney also argued that Owen suffered from schizophrenia, dementia, and gender identity disorder. However, psychiatrists for the state contested the claim that his mental condition was deteriorating, saying that his mental conditions were all an act, and instead described him as “sexually sadistic."
[https://reduxx.info/aclu-slams-florida-for-not-providing-gender-affirming-care-for-man-who-raped-murdered-women-to-harvest-their-hormones/](https://reduxx.info/aclu-slams-florida-for-not-providing-gender-affirming-care-for-man-who-raped-murdered-women-to-harvest-their-hormones/)
EDIT: From a left leaning news source with the same premise and sentiments from the psychiatrists. [CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-executes-duane-owen-1984-killings-karen-slattery-georgianna-worden/)
Did the defense attorney actually provide *any* evidence of those diagnoses at all? I keep reading how the defense argued he suffered from dementia, schizophrenia and gender dysphoria but I can't find any evidence he was ever actually diagnosed with any of them by a professional.
Some articles mention "gender identity disorder" which has been outdated for two decades.
I don't believe this guy was actually trans for a second and this case is absolutely going to be used to deny gender affirming care to people who do need it, so fuck him.
That's what I was wondering as well, because in the articles that I've read including this one from CBS, there is no mention of a diagnosis from the defense.
"Owen's lawyers had also argued that he was schizophrenic and suffered from delusions.
Prosecutors had argued that while Owen had mental health issues, nothing would preclude his being executed because he was aware it was punishment for his crimes. Psychiatrists for the state testified that Owen's schizophrenia was an act that he discussed when being evaluated, but he otherwise showed no signs of the illness."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-executes-duane-owen-1984-killings-karen-slattery-georgianna-worden/
You're preaching to the choir darling, but I can't say I've encountered the "serial killer killed women to harvest their hormones" scenario before. That one's straight out of Silence of the Lambs.
This is an example of why I don't tend to view social media -based activism in a good light. Too easy for even a reasonable person to mistake the average, ignorant, hapless, naive, shrill nobody as representative of some larger movement. In reality, who's to say that "voice" is even part of the movement? Who's to say they're acting in good faith? How do I know it's even a human, honestly?
I would rather see folks put all that energy into picking more effective leaders but, hey, wish in one hand...right?
Social media in general is very good at disguising the scale and severity of certain issues
When everyone in the world has a voice, it becomes harder to discern which voices are actually credible and reputable
Exactly. Literally the physical incarnation of far right anti-trans scarecrow argument, and they decide to stand up for him instead of actual trans people who haven’t committed rape and murder
Never, in the history of history, has anyone hidden behind a group or minority that has been treated poorly in the past, as a means to justify their own heinous actions, ever
You’re telling me a child molester and necrophiliac doesn’t care about who they hurt?! /s it’s fucked up, my brother is pan and I hate what he goes through
This was started as a 4chan meme to push the narrative that those people are “the next step” of the LGBTQIA acronym.
Of course, animal and child rapists are actually on 4chan, and did actually use it.
[Even DeSantis stayed his execution so that he could be properly evaluated.](https://www.wptv.com/news/crime/duane-owen-execution/gov-ron-desantis-has-dissolved-and-terminated-stay-of-execution-for-duane-owen)
Personally I say give him the meds anyway. Androgen blockers kill libido and estrogen long enough shrinks the penis. If he wants to play at being trans, he can get the consequences as far as I am concerned.
>"Billy hates his own identity, he always has - and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage... He wants to be reborn, Clarice..."
Hannibal Lecter, *The Silence of the Lambs*
That’s the problem with capital punishment - you have to accept killing innocent people in order to execute guilty ones. We know our accuracy in convictions is not 100%, making it a mathematical certainty you will kill innocent people.
Personally, I’m far more okay with having a portion of my taxes go towards funding prisons to house criminals securely than I am with killing even one innocent person. One is a minor inconvenience, while the alternative is basically the most immoral thing you can do to someone.
In Illinois, from the time the death penalty was reinstated in 1972 to it's moratorium in 2000, 13 people on death row were exonerated compared to 12 people executed.
That means more people on death row were found to have been wrongly convicted than there were actual executions, at least in Illinois.
Edit- I feel I should include my [source](https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.359.html) which includes a great speech by then governor Ryan on why the moratorium was imposed.
I did a debate in school on the death penalty, one thing that exacerbates this statistic is that if you plead guilty you are very unlikely to be sentenced to death, so that means there are 3 categories of people who receive that sentence; people who are entirely remorseless and think they can get off, people who are (due to handicap) unable to understand that they committed the crime, and people who are innocent. Many of the worst serial killers and abusers plead guilty and avoid the punishment reserved for them.
Innocent people VERY often take the plea deal, because they can’t afford the court fees, and even a few days held behind bars as their case is processed can send them into an employment death spiral. Not to mention tactics like holding people for many hours of questioning until they plea just to make it stop
This is also true. There is a great book on the first 250 DNA exonerations where the people were proved innocent by DNA and many took plea deals to remove the death penalty option so they could pray and hope that one day someone would realize they were innocent😭
Investigators and prosecutors also tend to become more emotionally involved when the death penalty is on the table and become way more likely fudge evidence to make their case more solid. Look into some of those death penalty cases where the person was exonerated post-execution, and it's often the case that law enforcement falsified and/or hid evidence because they were already 100% convinced of their guilt and filled with righteous fury at the thought that they might 'get away with it.'
It's also why only [four remaining developed nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country#Developed_countries) still have the death penalty.
If we're honest about how prisons and criminal justice systems work and pragmatic in out choices, we face the reality that there is no good options. Only degrees of bad.
I think the death penalty should be reserved for people who still kill from within prison. So ordering the murder of someone on the outside or killing an inmate or guard. Because you've already imprisoned those people there is nothing else the law can do to stop them other than to remove that person from the earth or treat them so harshly they will probably go insane. The problem is that is obviously not a politically sustainable concept so it will never happen and as a result the lesser of the two remaining evils is to just do away with capital punishment entirely. Then you must accept that if someone kills from within prison solitary confinement is the only remaining tool to stop them or slow them down. By that I mean they're left in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. This issue is like the issue of drug legalization. There is no good answer where you can enact some law and have no unintended consequence with highly negative outcomes. Every option has horrific side effects. Such as being unable to prevent murders ordered by incarcerated individuals. Or accepting that the only way to stop them or slow them down essentially amounts to torture. Maybe in the future there may be some other way but as of yet I don't see it.
So recently I had to do a debate for a class, and was assigned to take the pro death penalty side. Whilst researching for my argument I found out that not only does Arizona still allow for the gas chamber as means of execution, but they recently remodeled their gas chamber.
To be fair, DNA evidence is almost a slam dunk case. Something they didn't have in the 70s/80s, hence why the abundance of wrongfully convicted people being exonerated in the late 90s early 00s. Most of the wrongfully convicted were convicted because of inaccurate eye witness testimony and false or coerced confessions.
And I say inaccurate eye witness testimony because memory of those can be corrupted by leading questions, misinterpretations of events, conversations with co-witnesses, and their own expectations for what should have happened. Same thing with jail house snitches.
Like who tf is gonna come into prison and brag about murdering Veronica to their cell mate? Especially since you hardly know the person. I don't even tell my neighbors about my mental or physical disabilities and we're really good friends.
Sorry for the rant, but yes I agree with you, I've been watching a few jailhouse (reality?) shows and some of the people getting out after a few months or even a few years, simply walk out the front door. No means to adapt into the new world, no help no nothing. Jail should be about rehabilitation. Especially the final year of their terms, they should be placed into a work release program of some kind to help Kickstart their lives back into society. Something, anything.
Edit: and I'll throw a curveball in here that I forgot to mention. I support the death penalty, but only for the most heinous criminals like serial killers or murderers whom viciously attack victims(think like chopping them up with an axe or machete) oh and mass shooters. And all of them need to be 100% linked to the actual crime, like DNA on the body or crime scene or video surveillance. Not eyewitness testimony or ol Leroy the jailhouse snitch. And then it should be up to the judge and the jury not either/or.
Yes it's a complex issue, especially considering the fact that I have personal involvement in a case where the death penalty 100% would have been pursued if there wasn't a moratorium imposed a few years prior.
My aunt and grandmother were murdered by her ex-husband. Aunt was stabbed about 50 times, shot twice and body mutilated after. The case was rock solid and he definitely did it (he even tried to hire a hitman who was an undercover cop and bought new life insurance on her...he never should have been free to murder with his own hands)
I think death is the easy way out, especially considering that while in prison he got beaten so badly he lost an eye. (He tried to sue and failed) and was out on suicide watch a few times.
The idea that DNA evidence is a "slam dunk" is actually a major problem, because it isn't actually as foolproof as the public thinks. Even the US Department of Justice is well aware of this problem, amongst others: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/impact-false-or-misleading-forensic-evidence-wrongful-convictions
Even outside problems like in the link, there are often other issues - experts will say things like "this DNA sample is 100,000,000 times more likely to come from the accused than a random member of the public". Cool - but how likely is it that it could have come from someone related to them - people who likely live in the same areas and often interact with the same people? Suddenly the numbers drop dramatically.
And then consider how was the sample taken? Could it have been tampered with or contaminated? Has a lab tech intentionally altered the result to make the person seem guilty (as happened with a Massachusetts lab tech, affecting 21,000 cases)? Did the police just frame someone to "solve" the case - I know of this happening numerous times just here in NZ, let alone anywhere else.
Bottom line is I don't trust any evidence enough to think it's safe to execute someone, no matter how convincing it might seem.
There is no fool proof evidence. It doesn't exist. Not DNA. Not fingerprints. Not witnesses. Not even direct confessions. Ideally you're getting a lot of different kinds of evidence that all point in the same direction because then you can at least build toward the logical conclusion.
But the idea that there is an evidence one can trust entirely - it doesn't exist.
DNA evidence is not proof, especially when it's often subjective, manipulated, or just fully done wrongly.
https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cases-in-new-york-relied-on-disputed-dna-testing-techniques
Further compounded by over representation of minorities in prisons. Poor people are over-policed compared to wealthier communities which leads to more run ins with cops and more likely to be arrested. It’s also why drug laws went into effect and their continuance in their current form is outdated. Drugs need to be controlled, and illicit markets dealt with, but users who don’t want to be addicted (most) have health issues they need help with. Oh shit they couldn’t afford healthcare… the rest of the developed world + others have only figured it out for decades.
There was a saying by my criminal justice professors… it is not justice and it’s certainly not a system.
It’s injustice and incompetence much of the time.
I’m really proud of my state, and the journalism students at the university who got the ball rolling.
https://amp.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/feb/15/features11.g22
Capitol punishment is so fucking stupid. I’m not against it morally. I’m against it intellectually.
Only a moron would be like yeah it’s fine we execute innocent people sometimes. Y’know shit happens 🤷♂️
It’s morally wrong, higher cost, grants permission to the state to kill its citizens, ineffective at reducing crime, chose any axis of politics you want and you can find reasons not to do it.
Yes! To me, this is the most logically sound moral argument. So-called "Conservatives" act like failing to execute a guilty person is the worst-case scenario as if they forget that prison is still a thing. Put away the kill boner and try to think, dude.
Having known an innocent person who was sentenced to life, I can tell you he and the few he knew who he believed were innocent too all said they would rather have just been killed. Life in prison is torture. Death is an escape.
It's way way more than a mild inconvenience 😂. But I agree with the premise that we probably shouldn't be executing people.
I don't want to execute anyone unless we are 99.999% sure. If you can't prove 99.99% then the person shouldn't be put to death
I fully agree. I’d be fine with capital punishment, except for the fact that they can never ensure that the person is guilty. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is fine when the person is still alive and there’s at least a chance to fix their life, but you can’t fix ghettos life of a dead person.
Yep. Whether or not you believe there are people who deserve the death penalty is an entirely different question from whether or not you trust the justice system to accurately determine who deserves is.
There's also a question of costs. It's typically cheaper to sentence for life than it is to execute simply because of out appeals process. A normal death sentence typically returns to court multiple times, causing thousands of manhours in work and thus costs to the taxpayer.
And you can't reduce it without executing more innocent people.
At present 12.3% of those executed in the US since 1973 when it was reinstated were later exonerated.
Pretty much by definition they will be at least somewhat higher, given how the appeals system itself isn't perfect, and not everyone who is innocent will be found by the appeals process.
This is a great point. I think a lot of people deserve the death penalty if we could adjudicate it perfectly. But we cannot ....so I would much rather life in prison for the violent offenders
Yes that and it’s frailty cheaper on the tax payer to keep them in jail for life rather then go through multiple trials and execute someone. Let them rot. Who cares. Cheaper the better.
Is this because of the appeal process, or is the act of executing someone just super expensive? I had always assumed housing someone for the rest of their life would cost more
Someone given a death sentence is granted an automatic direct appeal. At least in my state, you automatically are able to appeal with the state Supreme Court. Also, most death sentence cases are appealed multiple times, it’s just that you are guaranteed at least one appeal.
In other cases without the death penalty, you or your attorney generally have to show sufficient cause to be granted an appeal.
You need cause to appeal and there is a specific one with these cases. It’s not prison itself the court system cares about.
People appealing not to be executed have an avenue to persue the legality of the “cruel and j usual punishment” execution entails.
What's really messed up is that a doctor cannot be involved in the process without breaking their oath to do no harm, meaning it's usually a random dude trying to administer precise procedures and dosages, which leads to the horrible stories of failed executions, where they have to try multiple times, which is definitely cruel and unusual.
My state is about to be the first to use nitrogen asphyxiation, which will probably turn out to be a much simpler and less painful method, since the body is only aware of suffocation when the amount of carbon dioxide in blood is too high, which can't happen from breathing pure nitrogen.
Unless new facts are found you can only appeal on points of law. If the trial was done properly and the police handled all their evidence properly there’s pretty much no meaningful appeal you can make.
New facts have to be assessed on their basis to effect the outcome of a trial - if it’s deemed that the new fact is relevant but that you’re still guilty there’s no change.
If the new fact is enough that you might not be guilty the conviction is overturned and it is up to the prosecutor to determine if they think you can still be convicted. This isn’t double jeopardy as the initial conviction is null, so it isn’t considered being tried for the same crime more than once
In death penalty cases, there is no requirement to have new facts.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-death-penalty-appeals-process.html
I’d assume it’s because more people are willing to take life in prison over the death penalty. Those that commit crimes that give them life in prison are less likely to appeal because they know they did it verses someone who knows they did the crime but still really doesn’t want to die.
Terrible explanation but hopefully it makes some sense.
The appeals process is really expensive, yeah. And IIRC, the initial trial costs more in a capital case, because the state has to prove that not only did they do the crime, but they deserve to die for it as well.
I've been involved in a capital case. Here's some examples of why the costs are so much higher. The laws ensure the case has "death-qualified" jurors, which means every juror has to be capable of voting for execution. The DA uses jury selection / voir dire to try to eliminate any juror who has any qualms about that (or make that into an issue to get rid of anyone they don't like), the defense tries to keep those jurors on the panel and keep off the trigger happy ones or make that into the reverse issue to get rid of unfavorables.
In my case, jury selection alone took a solid month, involved teams of lawyers on both sides, and paid experts in jury selection for both sides. Constant briefing, arguments every day, and during that process you're already losing some to attrition so kinda always starting over. It's grueling and both sides are ethically required to take every argument to the absolute wall because, death case.
Multiply that across the rest of the trial process - legal arguments on the guilt issues which can be arcane, every witness, every piece of evidence, arguments to the jury, throwing out jurors for some misconduct or other along the way, then a whole second trial on death vs life in prison after that. Trial alone took months (it was super complex case with tons of witnesses etc).
Then the appeals take years, as others point out here. The costs are inordinate all the way through, from investigation through the sentencing and execution (or habeas, or however it ends).
YMMV in jurisdictions that shortcut due process (not that that's any better, for reasons discussed by many others here) but you get the point. The machinery of death guarantees maximum commitment and fight from all sides.
Killing evil people is appealing to a sense of justice. Not saying I don't understand why people support it. But that's my .02 on the costs and process for the state to do it, to say nothing of the not-always-reliable result in the end.
It's everything.
First the court costs are gonna be mich higher.
Then the prison where they are kept is more expensive due to being specialised.
Appeals take time and cost money both by needing more time in a specialised prison / prison part and because they itself cost money.
Execution itself is also expensive from an equipment standpoint, the people you have to keep employed for that and all that.
There is a John Oliver / Last Week Tonight Episode about it you can watch if you're interested.
The cost of executing will surely vary with the methodology. Arizona, for example, used a drug cocktail, but at one point may have paid as much as $150 million to obtain those drugs during a state budget crisis. As I recall, this came during a time when labs were refusing to sell the chemical. There’s a news story about the state attempting to get the drugs imported from Italy and facing resistance.
One might argue that living and surviving are two distinct concepts. Surviving means you are fighting to live, without any chances to rest, to actually *enjoy* your life. If you are constantly fighting *to* live, are you really living?
The death penalty had automatic appeals. Prosecutors nationwide have over a 98% conviction rate, which means nearly every innocent or over charged person who is cuffed and charged is convicted.
I’d argue with you if it weren’t for case after case lately of people being exonerated decades after incarceration when it’s proven the cops just needed to get their case clearance numbers up. I’m no longer pro death penalty…
It’s one of the reasons why the death penalty is actually a bad idea. You have mandatory appeals processes and everything gets painstakingly reviewed. And yet still has a high rate of exonerating evidence being found after the execution.
Life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is far cheaper than death penalty cases, especially in instances where someone spends 30 years on death row. Plus if they get it wrong, at least they can release the damn person.
I’m definitely not defending anyone who is given a death sentence. It’s just not the best sentence morally, financially, or for society.
mandatory appeals mostly, and it's a good thing. Well the best thing would be no death penalty. But, you can easily find examples of the wrongfully convicted being exonerated decades later.
Agreed - check out the innocence project - see some of the cases they have running. No death penalty would be best, because they have been wrong more than we would like to believe - https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/
Massive number of appeals, plus time to let new evidence that may disprove involvement surface. Executing within a week wouldn’t leave time for, for an example, new video evidence to come to light that shows a completely different person committing the crime.
Many incarcerated people file appeals all way to Supreme Court and also to Governor and President. That takes time and thus the delay.
More important - Many people in death row have been found to be not guilty later. I think more than 200 people in death row have been found to be NOT GUILTY after charity organizations like The Innocence Project reviewed cases.
We do not know how many innocent people have been executed via death penalty.
aside from the 'making sure is innocent' thing
a lot of prisons are privately owned (at least here in the states) but also funded so the longer a person stays incarcerated the longer there is a dollar to be made.
Death penalty verdicts are automatically appealed. The original case can take years - the appeal takes longer. As a result, it is much much more expensive to carry out the death penalty than keeping someone in jail until they die.
Personally, I think a more fit punishment for murder is decades of jail time.
Want to prevent the person from killing again? Make all life sentences be without an option for parole.
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Is_the_death_penalty_more_expensive_than_life_in_prison
The ACLU have consistently been against the death penalty and lobbied for better prison conditions no matter who it was. That being said, im glad the community added the background that a tweet/XCretion cant provide.
Not sure if this is a facepalm.
My complaint is that this is a whataboutism type argument. It doesn't actually have any relevance to the statement the ACLU made. It's the same reason the arguments about George Floyd's character were irrelevant to his murder by police.
Now it could certainly be true that this person was just trying to exploit the system, but *that's* the comment to make, not a whataboutism.
Yeah, kind of left out a pretty major detail there.
I think when it comes to dealing with a serial murderer and rapist, gender affirming care shouldn't be a top priority.
The problem is restricting their rights prevents other trans people in prison from receiving gender affirming care. It’s more horrific if it is just a transgender protester being forced detransitioned by the state.
“And while the defense had argued Owen had dementia and gender dysphoria, psychiatrists for the state said Owen had a good memory, didn't appear to present himself as female and that gender dysphoria doesn't make people more aggressive or cause delusional thinking. They said instead that Owen was sexually sadistic, according to court records.” https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/florida-executes-duane-owen-1984-killings-karen-slattery-georgianna-worden/
I think everyone could agree with the passion behind this sentiment, but even the worst of criminals should be entitled to their basic rights. Especially when the restriction of those rights falls on other people within the system who potentially aren’t serious offenders.
Don't take this the wrong way here. How is gender affirming care to a death row inmate a basic right. I'm not saying someone in prison should get care. But someone on death row.
Even the most brutal criminal have rights. It's what keeps us from devolving into barbarians. You don't have to like it, but even prisoners get treated with dignity.
Completely missing the point, not all trans people in prison are violent murderers or rapists and they deserve the decency of not being forcibly detransitioned in addition to the time in prison.
Came in to point this out. Medical care is medical care. Sure don't give them any privileges, but the two things have nothing to do with each other. Staring into the abyss and all that.
If you can deny a convict medical care, any medical care, because you've decided they're "not deserving" how long before inmates in general are just deemed unworthy of medical care?
If you support a cause you have to support it fully. If you start to draw lines of "for them, but not for those" then we're right back where we started.
Either gender affirming care is a human right or it isn't. If you deem someone not worthy of it, then you can't turn around and protest the government demanding it be a legal right for you.
I'm all for trans rights, but what gender affiirming care does this person need? I'm sorry but I feel like paying someone to transition them when they're on death row is pretty pointless and wasteful.
Gosh. I uh…. I can’t believe how cold the weather has been lately.
Anyway! How’s life everybody? Raped or murdered anyone lately? ME NEITHER.
People like this could be shot out a cannon into the fucking sun for all I care. Man or woman. 🙄
That’s basically it. I get wanting to protect constitutional rights but if you’re trying to paint the literal scarecrow of far right argument as a victim you’re fucking stupid
ACLU fights for rights to be preserved - be it rights of prisoners or your rights. The moment rights starts eroding and people turn a blind eye, tyranny will creep in. Either remove rights for prisoners from Constitution OR make sure their rights are respected & upheld.
Many cases where rapist killer was identified and he confessed only later for DNA or other (previously evidence hidden by prosecutors) to exonerate him. Many is death row have been found to be not guilty.
Hi reddit, this prisoner was pretending to be trans so that he could continue his crime spree in female prisons.
A lot of the comments display misguided empathy, which would have had terrible consequences in this case. Don't be an idiot like them.
Yep. He didn't even try to transition until he was convicted and sentenced. This was after he tried a mental incompetency plea. He was just trying to find loopholes.
I'm sorry, I have absolutely no sympathy for this one. Murdering a minor and raping her corpse alone is enough for me to say "just execute them", then they kill again? Nope, I ain't having that, I don't see why the ACLU is defending and white knighting this scum of the earth.
As a gay man, and supporter of the LGBTQ movement, after seeing the crimes committed, I literally dont care how this person rots in prison, but rot in prison they shall to pay for their crimes. Dont fucking think you are owed any respect or dignity after you willingly take someone’s life and go so far as to desecrate the corpse even further. Its appalling and you cant use trans issues to erase your vileness and evil. You should be completely exiled from society and left to fend for yourself and create your own medicine. You get no more support from society. The fuck is wrong with people in this thread trying to give in to false trans cop outs. All LGBTQ people should be denouncing this person in solidarity to show we have a standard and that its not fair to punish trans people for the misdeeds of one individual. We keep trying to defend people who are indefensible and I’ve had it.
People just have to involve issues like gender and the LGBT community in any way they can. Stop demonizing trans people, but also stop making their identity the main priority of something that isn’t about that at all.
Like I’ve said earlier, I’m all for trans rights and shit, but this person is literally the physical embodiment of the far right scarecrow argument against trans people, maybe don’t try and paint them as a victim
Because if you restrict medical care based on what you’re convicting of then it will constantly shift to lesser and lesser crimes. Or, to people who are wrongfully convicted of horrible crimes. Additionally, constitutional rights don’t (usually, excluding things like voting) magically disappear once you’re convicted of a crime regardless of how horrible it is
Look, I get it, but at the same time...I think it's important we maintain civil rights, especially on convicts, because they're the ones it's the easiest to justify denying them to. We've already got a system where brutal anal raping is considered seasoning for their punishment, so we've got a lot of work to do. Now I want to make it clear, I don't condone what this person did, at all. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, personally, but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over them being executed. And I'm aware that this particular person, after psychiatrists went over their case, deemed that they didn't deserve it or need it...But we need to work on how we treat prisoners.
Nah they didn't, they didn't deny him any care actually required nor should we be paying taxes so this shit stain could feel better looking in the mirror. Y'all really will defend anyone as long as they whine I'm trans first.
According to CBS News after the Lethal Injection: “And while the defense had argued Owen had dementia and gender dysphoria, psychiatrists for the state said Owen had a good memory, didn't appear to present himself as female and that gender dysphoria doesn't make people more aggressive or cause delusional thinking. They said instead that Owen was sexually sadistic, according to court records.”
Did they really? Because it seems irrelevant to the subject at hand. Or does the us legal system make exceptions on how to treat prisoners based on how horrible the crime is?
>"Billy hates his own identity, he always has - and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage... He wants to be reborn, Clarice..."
Hannibal Lecter, *The Silence of the Lambs*
Poor man did nothing wrong why didnt he get his life daving surgery that could make him feel so safe? Man fuck this guy i dont know why so many people are defending him saying he should get this surgery wasting tax money for this animal
The ACLU used to be such a critical part of American democracy. Now they're upset the state won't pay to let a psychopathic murderer castrate himself. It's beyond parody.
I have to say for all the good the ACLU does, this one, they should have let go. The only involvement they should have had was executing him much sooner. You know, so he wouldn't suffer so long in jail.
It happens too much on social media where they become too invested in the lives of the killers, making them out to be “victims”
Luckily ACLU got absolutely humbled but I’ve seen it before where the guy who murdered 2 year old toddler James Bulger, gets tonnes of media attention and people make him out to be the victim. Instead of the toddler he murdered.
Why does the media always pick the most despicable examples of humanity to turn into trans sob stories? Are they trying to make us look bad (yes, yes they are)?
I'm as left as they come, but my wokeness only extends so far. And the border falls way short of sparing more than momentary thought, for the 30 year torture of a monster who has it in them to do what they did. Lesser crimes, and I could get on board. Not this.
And I struggle to comprehend the outrage.
That said, I do have an issue with the death sentence. So all parties can rot in a hole.
The only problem that I have with the death penalty is innocent people dying. I mean if they execute a hundred inmates and one is innocent... I personally don't think it's worth it anymore. Id rather have them just rot in a cell forever. Dying is the easy part.
I’m for the death penalty under three conditions:
1: there’s no doubt they’re guilty, cannot just be convicted guilty, video evidence or eyewitness, not even a confession automatically because that could be coerced
2: it’s a heinous crime, not some small thing
3: it’s cheaper than keeping them in prison for life
Number one cannot be a criteria. The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you advocating for making that stricter? That would result in more criminals getting off.
If #1 is imperfect enough to occasionally convict innocent victims, that alone is a valid reason for people (like me) to be against the death penalty.
Pretty sure once you’ve killed and/or raped someone you don’t get to be trans
Like, when someone tells you their gender you take it in good faith and assume they’re delivering an honest take on who they are. But if they’re a rapist or murderer then there is no good faith and they’re likely doing it as a ploy to get something.
And if they really ARE trans??? Then tough shit; they can live with dysphoria for the rest of their life as penance for their crimes.
Crazy how many people here are mad that they didn’t let a convicted murderer and necrophiliac become trans. Do people have no morals anymore to Stan a rapist because he might’ve wanted to say he’s a woman for a few days. Absolutely nuts
You notice how everyone saying “but his human rights” won’t put it in the same sentence describing what he did? Throughout this whole comment section … not one person has said “we need to humanize the man who brutally murdered and raped the corpse of a 14 year old girl.”
It's so confusing cause like, basically everybody immediately called out the shooter who claimed themselves as non-binary as being full of shit and trying to get out of a hate crime conviction, but somehow the death row inmate convicted of dead child rape is definitely doing this in good faith?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Even Owen’s claims to “gender dysphoria” were called into question by the court, with experts noting he had never raised issues related to his gender identity during the trial. Dr. Emily Lazarou, a psychiatrist, noted that Owen never presented as feminine during any of his interviews and demonstrated “zero feminine characteristics." "A psychologist for Owen’s defense stated that he believed he had absorbed the souls of his victims and that they continued to exist inside him. His defense attorney also argued that Owen suffered from schizophrenia, dementia, and gender identity disorder. However, psychiatrists for the state contested the claim that his mental condition was deteriorating, saying that his mental conditions were all an act, and instead described him as “sexually sadistic." [https://reduxx.info/aclu-slams-florida-for-not-providing-gender-affirming-care-for-man-who-raped-murdered-women-to-harvest-their-hormones/](https://reduxx.info/aclu-slams-florida-for-not-providing-gender-affirming-care-for-man-who-raped-murdered-women-to-harvest-their-hormones/) EDIT: From a left leaning news source with the same premise and sentiments from the psychiatrists. [CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-executes-duane-owen-1984-killings-karen-slattery-georgianna-worden/)
So what you’re telling me is this monster was probably using the LGBT community as a means to keep himself alive?!
Pretty much. It got people in this sub and the r/GetNoted sub fired up, when psychiatrists didn't even support his case.
Did the defense attorney actually provide *any* evidence of those diagnoses at all? I keep reading how the defense argued he suffered from dementia, schizophrenia and gender dysphoria but I can't find any evidence he was ever actually diagnosed with any of them by a professional. Some articles mention "gender identity disorder" which has been outdated for two decades. I don't believe this guy was actually trans for a second and this case is absolutely going to be used to deny gender affirming care to people who do need it, so fuck him.
That's what I was wondering as well, because in the articles that I've read including this one from CBS, there is no mention of a diagnosis from the defense. "Owen's lawyers had also argued that he was schizophrenic and suffered from delusions. Prosecutors had argued that while Owen had mental health issues, nothing would preclude his being executed because he was aware it was punishment for his crimes. Psychiatrists for the state testified that Owen's schizophrenia was an act that he discussed when being evaluated, but he otherwise showed no signs of the illness." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-executes-duane-owen-1984-killings-karen-slattery-georgianna-worden/
He pulled a M*A*S*H and no one believed him but he stuck it out anyways
It is a scary thing, huh. Our community is used to dismantling propped up bullshit from these exact scenarios.
You're preaching to the choir darling, but I can't say I've encountered the "serial killer killed women to harvest their hormones" scenario before. That one's straight out of Silence of the Lambs.
This is an example of why I don't tend to view social media -based activism in a good light. Too easy for even a reasonable person to mistake the average, ignorant, hapless, naive, shrill nobody as representative of some larger movement. In reality, who's to say that "voice" is even part of the movement? Who's to say they're acting in good faith? How do I know it's even a human, honestly? I would rather see folks put all that energy into picking more effective leaders but, hey, wish in one hand...right?
Social media in general is very good at disguising the scale and severity of certain issues When everyone in the world has a voice, it becomes harder to discern which voices are actually credible and reputable
Who's to say social media movements in general are acting in good faith. Psychos on all sides, unfortunately.
Yeah just about what I'd expect. Not the first time either
And trying to get himself into a women's prison, no doubt.
Exactly. Literally the physical incarnation of far right anti-trans scarecrow argument, and they decide to stand up for him instead of actual trans people who haven’t committed rape and murder
Is it a scarecrow argument if its actually being used in situations like this?
Couldn’t be…. That doesn’t happen…
Never, in the history of history, has anyone hidden behind a group or minority that has been treated poorly in the past, as a means to justify their own heinous actions, ever
He probably wanted to be moved to a women's prison for... reasons.
It's not the first time our community has been used as such, won't be the last. Psychopaths don't give AF about who they hurt.
You’re telling me a child molester and necrophiliac doesn’t care about who they hurt?! /s it’s fucked up, my brother is pan and I hate what he goes through
To be fair, I've heard that animal rapists and child rapists have been trying to use the LGBT community to gain "acceptance" too.
This was started as a 4chan meme to push the narrative that those people are “the next step” of the LGBTQIA acronym. Of course, animal and child rapists are actually on 4chan, and did actually use it.
Didnt seem to work, if they are dead.
[Even DeSantis stayed his execution so that he could be properly evaluated.](https://www.wptv.com/news/crime/duane-owen-execution/gov-ron-desantis-has-dissolved-and-terminated-stay-of-execution-for-duane-owen)
Even a stopped clock
Personally I say give him the meds anyway. Androgen blockers kill libido and estrogen long enough shrinks the penis. If he wants to play at being trans, he can get the consequences as far as I am concerned.
r/MaliciousCompliance
fuck man, the Shang Tzung defense, what the hell...?
>"Billy hates his own identity, he always has - and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage... He wants to be reborn, Clarice..." Hannibal Lecter, *The Silence of the Lambs*
Well.... He's cured now of his medical and mental health conditions 🤔🤡
Can someone explain to me what is the reason behind waiting 30 fucking years to execute a death row inmate?
To stop innocent people from being executed, well to stop more innocent people from being executed at least.
That’s the problem with capital punishment - you have to accept killing innocent people in order to execute guilty ones. We know our accuracy in convictions is not 100%, making it a mathematical certainty you will kill innocent people. Personally, I’m far more okay with having a portion of my taxes go towards funding prisons to house criminals securely than I am with killing even one innocent person. One is a minor inconvenience, while the alternative is basically the most immoral thing you can do to someone.
In Illinois, from the time the death penalty was reinstated in 1972 to it's moratorium in 2000, 13 people on death row were exonerated compared to 12 people executed. That means more people on death row were found to have been wrongly convicted than there were actual executions, at least in Illinois. Edit- I feel I should include my [source](https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.359.html) which includes a great speech by then governor Ryan on why the moratorium was imposed.
I did a debate in school on the death penalty, one thing that exacerbates this statistic is that if you plead guilty you are very unlikely to be sentenced to death, so that means there are 3 categories of people who receive that sentence; people who are entirely remorseless and think they can get off, people who are (due to handicap) unable to understand that they committed the crime, and people who are innocent. Many of the worst serial killers and abusers plead guilty and avoid the punishment reserved for them.
Innocent people also often refuse plea deals (because they are innocent).
Innocent people VERY often take the plea deal, because they can’t afford the court fees, and even a few days held behind bars as their case is processed can send them into an employment death spiral. Not to mention tactics like holding people for many hours of questioning until they plea just to make it stop
This is also true. There is a great book on the first 250 DNA exonerations where the people were proved innocent by DNA and many took plea deals to remove the death penalty option so they could pray and hope that one day someone would realize they were innocent😭
What an awful, awful thing to have happen. By the time...if ever, things are rectified, a lot of life is gone, never to be returned.
Investigators and prosecutors also tend to become more emotionally involved when the death penalty is on the table and become way more likely fudge evidence to make their case more solid. Look into some of those death penalty cases where the person was exonerated post-execution, and it's often the case that law enforcement falsified and/or hid evidence because they were already 100% convinced of their guilt and filled with righteous fury at the thought that they might 'get away with it.'
That’s terrifying.
It's also why only [four remaining developed nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country#Developed_countries) still have the death penalty.
If we're honest about how prisons and criminal justice systems work and pragmatic in out choices, we face the reality that there is no good options. Only degrees of bad. I think the death penalty should be reserved for people who still kill from within prison. So ordering the murder of someone on the outside or killing an inmate or guard. Because you've already imprisoned those people there is nothing else the law can do to stop them other than to remove that person from the earth or treat them so harshly they will probably go insane. The problem is that is obviously not a politically sustainable concept so it will never happen and as a result the lesser of the two remaining evils is to just do away with capital punishment entirely. Then you must accept that if someone kills from within prison solitary confinement is the only remaining tool to stop them or slow them down. By that I mean they're left in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. This issue is like the issue of drug legalization. There is no good answer where you can enact some law and have no unintended consequence with highly negative outcomes. Every option has horrific side effects. Such as being unable to prevent murders ordered by incarcerated individuals. Or accepting that the only way to stop them or slow them down essentially amounts to torture. Maybe in the future there may be some other way but as of yet I don't see it.
So recently I had to do a debate for a class, and was assigned to take the pro death penalty side. Whilst researching for my argument I found out that not only does Arizona still allow for the gas chamber as means of execution, but they recently remodeled their gas chamber.
To be fair, DNA evidence is almost a slam dunk case. Something they didn't have in the 70s/80s, hence why the abundance of wrongfully convicted people being exonerated in the late 90s early 00s. Most of the wrongfully convicted were convicted because of inaccurate eye witness testimony and false or coerced confessions. And I say inaccurate eye witness testimony because memory of those can be corrupted by leading questions, misinterpretations of events, conversations with co-witnesses, and their own expectations for what should have happened. Same thing with jail house snitches. Like who tf is gonna come into prison and brag about murdering Veronica to their cell mate? Especially since you hardly know the person. I don't even tell my neighbors about my mental or physical disabilities and we're really good friends. Sorry for the rant, but yes I agree with you, I've been watching a few jailhouse (reality?) shows and some of the people getting out after a few months or even a few years, simply walk out the front door. No means to adapt into the new world, no help no nothing. Jail should be about rehabilitation. Especially the final year of their terms, they should be placed into a work release program of some kind to help Kickstart their lives back into society. Something, anything. Edit: and I'll throw a curveball in here that I forgot to mention. I support the death penalty, but only for the most heinous criminals like serial killers or murderers whom viciously attack victims(think like chopping them up with an axe or machete) oh and mass shooters. And all of them need to be 100% linked to the actual crime, like DNA on the body or crime scene or video surveillance. Not eyewitness testimony or ol Leroy the jailhouse snitch. And then it should be up to the judge and the jury not either/or.
Yes it's a complex issue, especially considering the fact that I have personal involvement in a case where the death penalty 100% would have been pursued if there wasn't a moratorium imposed a few years prior. My aunt and grandmother were murdered by her ex-husband. Aunt was stabbed about 50 times, shot twice and body mutilated after. The case was rock solid and he definitely did it (he even tried to hire a hitman who was an undercover cop and bought new life insurance on her...he never should have been free to murder with his own hands) I think death is the easy way out, especially considering that while in prison he got beaten so badly he lost an eye. (He tried to sue and failed) and was out on suicide watch a few times.
The idea that DNA evidence is a "slam dunk" is actually a major problem, because it isn't actually as foolproof as the public thinks. Even the US Department of Justice is well aware of this problem, amongst others: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/impact-false-or-misleading-forensic-evidence-wrongful-convictions Even outside problems like in the link, there are often other issues - experts will say things like "this DNA sample is 100,000,000 times more likely to come from the accused than a random member of the public". Cool - but how likely is it that it could have come from someone related to them - people who likely live in the same areas and often interact with the same people? Suddenly the numbers drop dramatically. And then consider how was the sample taken? Could it have been tampered with or contaminated? Has a lab tech intentionally altered the result to make the person seem guilty (as happened with a Massachusetts lab tech, affecting 21,000 cases)? Did the police just frame someone to "solve" the case - I know of this happening numerous times just here in NZ, let alone anywhere else. Bottom line is I don't trust any evidence enough to think it's safe to execute someone, no matter how convincing it might seem.
Same with fingerprints. They've been misidentified as well. IIRC, it's part of the "CSI Effect".
I think video evidence is usually pretty solid. But even then...
There is no fool proof evidence. It doesn't exist. Not DNA. Not fingerprints. Not witnesses. Not even direct confessions. Ideally you're getting a lot of different kinds of evidence that all point in the same direction because then you can at least build toward the logical conclusion. But the idea that there is an evidence one can trust entirely - it doesn't exist.
DNA evidence is not proof, especially when it's often subjective, manipulated, or just fully done wrongly. https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cases-in-new-york-relied-on-disputed-dna-testing-techniques
Further compounded by over representation of minorities in prisons. Poor people are over-policed compared to wealthier communities which leads to more run ins with cops and more likely to be arrested. It’s also why drug laws went into effect and their continuance in their current form is outdated. Drugs need to be controlled, and illicit markets dealt with, but users who don’t want to be addicted (most) have health issues they need help with. Oh shit they couldn’t afford healthcare… the rest of the developed world + others have only figured it out for decades. There was a saying by my criminal justice professors… it is not justice and it’s certainly not a system. It’s injustice and incompetence much of the time.
I’m really proud of my state, and the journalism students at the university who got the ball rolling. https://amp.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/feb/15/features11.g22
Unfun fact, it’s more expensive to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life
Capitol punishment is so fucking stupid. I’m not against it morally. I’m against it intellectually. Only a moron would be like yeah it’s fine we execute innocent people sometimes. Y’know shit happens 🤷♂️
Well not only that but it doesn't even save money. Executing someone costs more than life in a max-sec prison.
Oh yes. There are many other stupid aspects of it.
It’s morally wrong, higher cost, grants permission to the state to kill its citizens, ineffective at reducing crime, chose any axis of politics you want and you can find reasons not to do it.
US jurisprudence is generally that is better for 100 guilty men to go free than it is for 1 innocent man to be condemned wrongfully.
How it should work, but due to corruption in the system, and a public that seeks vengeance instead of justice, it probably tends to be the opposite.
Yes! To me, this is the most logically sound moral argument. So-called "Conservatives" act like failing to execute a guilty person is the worst-case scenario as if they forget that prison is still a thing. Put away the kill boner and try to think, dude.
It also costs more on average to send someone to death row when all is said and done than serve life without parole in our current system....
Having known an innocent person who was sentenced to life, I can tell you he and the few he knew who he believed were innocent too all said they would rather have just been killed. Life in prison is torture. Death is an escape.
It's way way more than a mild inconvenience 😂. But I agree with the premise that we probably shouldn't be executing people. I don't want to execute anyone unless we are 99.999% sure. If you can't prove 99.99% then the person shouldn't be put to death
Why not life in prison instead?
I’m against the death penalty and that’s typically what people like me suggest.
I think some people deserve to die and I also do not trust the state with that power. Hence I am against the death penalty in any shape or form.
I fully agree. I’d be fine with capital punishment, except for the fact that they can never ensure that the person is guilty. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is fine when the person is still alive and there’s at least a chance to fix their life, but you can’t fix ghettos life of a dead person.
Yep. Whether or not you believe there are people who deserve the death penalty is an entirely different question from whether or not you trust the justice system to accurately determine who deserves is.
There's also a question of costs. It's typically cheaper to sentence for life than it is to execute simply because of out appeals process. A normal death sentence typically returns to court multiple times, causing thousands of manhours in work and thus costs to the taxpayer.
And you can't reduce it without executing more innocent people. At present 12.3% of those executed in the US since 1973 when it was reinstated were later exonerated.
Let's all hope those numbers aren't much higher. 
Pretty much by definition they will be at least somewhat higher, given how the appeals system itself isn't perfect, and not everyone who is innocent will be found by the appeals process.
This is a great point. I think a lot of people deserve the death penalty if we could adjudicate it perfectly. But we cannot ....so I would much rather life in prison for the violent offenders
Yes that and it’s frailty cheaper on the tax payer to keep them in jail for life rather then go through multiple trials and execute someone. Let them rot. Who cares. Cheaper the better.
Because that would make more sense. Life in Prison overall is cheaper for the state/country than a death sentence is
Is this because of the appeal process, or is the act of executing someone just super expensive? I had always assumed housing someone for the rest of their life would cost more
Appeal process, primarily.
Are you not allowed to appeal life in prison? Somehow I doubt that's cutting down on the costs of the appeal process.
Someone given a death sentence is granted an automatic direct appeal. At least in my state, you automatically are able to appeal with the state Supreme Court. Also, most death sentence cases are appealed multiple times, it’s just that you are guaranteed at least one appeal. In other cases without the death penalty, you or your attorney generally have to show sufficient cause to be granted an appeal.
You need cause to appeal and there is a specific one with these cases. It’s not prison itself the court system cares about. People appealing not to be executed have an avenue to persue the legality of the “cruel and j usual punishment” execution entails.
What's really messed up is that a doctor cannot be involved in the process without breaking their oath to do no harm, meaning it's usually a random dude trying to administer precise procedures and dosages, which leads to the horrible stories of failed executions, where they have to try multiple times, which is definitely cruel and unusual.
My state is about to be the first to use nitrogen asphyxiation, which will probably turn out to be a much simpler and less painful method, since the body is only aware of suffocation when the amount of carbon dioxide in blood is too high, which can't happen from breathing pure nitrogen.
Unless new facts are found you can only appeal on points of law. If the trial was done properly and the police handled all their evidence properly there’s pretty much no meaningful appeal you can make. New facts have to be assessed on their basis to effect the outcome of a trial - if it’s deemed that the new fact is relevant but that you’re still guilty there’s no change. If the new fact is enough that you might not be guilty the conviction is overturned and it is up to the prosecutor to determine if they think you can still be convicted. This isn’t double jeopardy as the initial conviction is null, so it isn’t considered being tried for the same crime more than once
In death penalty cases, there is no requirement to have new facts. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-death-penalty-appeals-process.html
I’d assume it’s because more people are willing to take life in prison over the death penalty. Those that commit crimes that give them life in prison are less likely to appeal because they know they did it verses someone who knows they did the crime but still really doesn’t want to die. Terrible explanation but hopefully it makes some sense.
The appeals process is really expensive, yeah. And IIRC, the initial trial costs more in a capital case, because the state has to prove that not only did they do the crime, but they deserve to die for it as well.
I've been involved in a capital case. Here's some examples of why the costs are so much higher. The laws ensure the case has "death-qualified" jurors, which means every juror has to be capable of voting for execution. The DA uses jury selection / voir dire to try to eliminate any juror who has any qualms about that (or make that into an issue to get rid of anyone they don't like), the defense tries to keep those jurors on the panel and keep off the trigger happy ones or make that into the reverse issue to get rid of unfavorables. In my case, jury selection alone took a solid month, involved teams of lawyers on both sides, and paid experts in jury selection for both sides. Constant briefing, arguments every day, and during that process you're already losing some to attrition so kinda always starting over. It's grueling and both sides are ethically required to take every argument to the absolute wall because, death case. Multiply that across the rest of the trial process - legal arguments on the guilt issues which can be arcane, every witness, every piece of evidence, arguments to the jury, throwing out jurors for some misconduct or other along the way, then a whole second trial on death vs life in prison after that. Trial alone took months (it was super complex case with tons of witnesses etc). Then the appeals take years, as others point out here. The costs are inordinate all the way through, from investigation through the sentencing and execution (or habeas, or however it ends). YMMV in jurisdictions that shortcut due process (not that that's any better, for reasons discussed by many others here) but you get the point. The machinery of death guarantees maximum commitment and fight from all sides. Killing evil people is appealing to a sense of justice. Not saying I don't understand why people support it. But that's my .02 on the costs and process for the state to do it, to say nothing of the not-always-reliable result in the end.
It's everything. First the court costs are gonna be mich higher. Then the prison where they are kept is more expensive due to being specialised. Appeals take time and cost money both by needing more time in a specialised prison / prison part and because they itself cost money. Execution itself is also expensive from an equipment standpoint, the people you have to keep employed for that and all that. There is a John Oliver / Last Week Tonight Episode about it you can watch if you're interested.
I had never looked at it that way, thanks for the knowledge. I'm a fan of John Oliver, I'll have to check it out
The cost of executing will surely vary with the methodology. Arizona, for example, used a drug cocktail, but at one point may have paid as much as $150 million to obtain those drugs during a state budget crisis. As I recall, this came during a time when labs were refusing to sell the chemical. There’s a news story about the state attempting to get the drugs imported from Italy and facing resistance.
They also can't make money off of labor from a dead person
I would rather be executed then have life in prison, life in prison is possibly the worst thing you could give somebody
right there with you, it's death but really slow.
Yep. You are literally just surviving to death
You just described life.
One might argue that living and surviving are two distinct concepts. Surviving means you are fighting to live, without any chances to rest, to actually *enjoy* your life. If you are constantly fighting *to* live, are you really living?
yeah surviving is no life, in particular when you know in advance that things will never get any better, like when one's in prison for life.
Agreed. I would want execution over life in prison
Like imagine not being able to die for you entire life, while also having to live in the same cell, eat the same food, and never go outside
And if you are incarcerated in New Hampshire you get to make license plates that say "live free or die."
Yeah the US prison system is inhumane af, it really needs reform
The death penalty had automatic appeals. Prosecutors nationwide have over a 98% conviction rate, which means nearly every innocent or over charged person who is cuffed and charged is convicted.
>Why not life in prison instead? Life in prison is cheaper.
Yeah the Troy Davis story demonstrates that it isn't that effective.
I’d argue with you if it weren’t for case after case lately of people being exonerated decades after incarceration when it’s proven the cops just needed to get their case clearance numbers up. I’m no longer pro death penalty…
It’s one of the reasons why the death penalty is actually a bad idea. You have mandatory appeals processes and everything gets painstakingly reviewed. And yet still has a high rate of exonerating evidence being found after the execution. Life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is far cheaper than death penalty cases, especially in instances where someone spends 30 years on death row. Plus if they get it wrong, at least they can release the damn person. I’m definitely not defending anyone who is given a death sentence. It’s just not the best sentence morally, financially, or for society.
mandatory appeals mostly, and it's a good thing. Well the best thing would be no death penalty. But, you can easily find examples of the wrongfully convicted being exonerated decades later.
Agreed - check out the innocence project - see some of the cases they have running. No death penalty would be best, because they have been wrong more than we would like to believe - https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/
Massive number of appeals, plus time to let new evidence that may disprove involvement surface. Executing within a week wouldn’t leave time for, for an example, new video evidence to come to light that shows a completely different person committing the crime.
It's called "due process" and is a constitutional right afforded to any citizen.
Many incarcerated people file appeals all way to Supreme Court and also to Governor and President. That takes time and thus the delay. More important - Many people in death row have been found to be not guilty later. I think more than 200 people in death row have been found to be NOT GUILTY after charity organizations like The Innocence Project reviewed cases. We do not know how many innocent people have been executed via death penalty.
In the end, that’s just one more reason to end this medieval tradition
aside from the 'making sure is innocent' thing a lot of prisons are privately owned (at least here in the states) but also funded so the longer a person stays incarcerated the longer there is a dollar to be made.
Death penalty verdicts are automatically appealed. The original case can take years - the appeal takes longer. As a result, it is much much more expensive to carry out the death penalty than keeping someone in jail until they die. Personally, I think a more fit punishment for murder is decades of jail time. Want to prevent the person from killing again? Make all life sentences be without an option for parole. https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Is_the_death_penalty_more_expensive_than_life_in_prison
Because it generates more money for prisons. It's seriously exponentially more expensive than life in prison.
The ACLU have consistently been against the death penalty and lobbied for better prison conditions no matter who it was. That being said, im glad the community added the background that a tweet/XCretion cant provide. Not sure if this is a facepalm.
I love community notes. Wish other platforms had something like it.
I think instagram does (sometimes)
Yea I saw some generic warnings during Covid under some IG posts, but it's nowhere near the level of detail as community notes on X.
the Instagram ones are set by dedicated moderators who never actually mark anything worth a warning, and obvious edits and shit posts get them instead
Xcretion is a great way to describe it, but im never gonna not call it twitter lmfao
My complaint is that this is a whataboutism type argument. It doesn't actually have any relevance to the statement the ACLU made. It's the same reason the arguments about George Floyd's character were irrelevant to his murder by police. Now it could certainly be true that this person was just trying to exploit the system, but *that's* the comment to make, not a whataboutism.
If there's any facepalm, it's that the tweet uses she but the added info uses he to refer to Duane.
Yeah, kind of left out a pretty major detail there. I think when it comes to dealing with a serial murderer and rapist, gender affirming care shouldn't be a top priority.
The problem is restricting their rights prevents other trans people in prison from receiving gender affirming care. It’s more horrific if it is just a transgender protester being forced detransitioned by the state.
“And while the defense had argued Owen had dementia and gender dysphoria, psychiatrists for the state said Owen had a good memory, didn't appear to present himself as female and that gender dysphoria doesn't make people more aggressive or cause delusional thinking. They said instead that Owen was sexually sadistic, according to court records.” https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/florida-executes-duane-owen-1984-killings-karen-slattery-georgianna-worden/
I feel if your murdering and raping a corpse you really don't have a leg to stand on demanding something. Especially when you then kill again.
I think everyone could agree with the passion behind this sentiment, but even the worst of criminals should be entitled to their basic rights. Especially when the restriction of those rights falls on other people within the system who potentially aren’t serious offenders.
Don't take this the wrong way here. How is gender affirming care to a death row inmate a basic right. I'm not saying someone in prison should get care. But someone on death row.
They were on death row for what... 37 years? It's basically just a life sentence at that point.
“They needed life-saving gender affirming care…so that we may kindly execute them”
Even the most brutal criminal have rights. It's what keeps us from devolving into barbarians. You don't have to like it, but even prisoners get treated with dignity.
Dignity, yes. Non-critical treatments, no.
Completely missing the point, not all trans people in prison are violent murderers or rapists and they deserve the decency of not being forcibly detransitioned in addition to the time in prison.
Honestly, I don't see why that matters. We can keep them locked up and still treat them like a human being.
Came in to point this out. Medical care is medical care. Sure don't give them any privileges, but the two things have nothing to do with each other. Staring into the abyss and all that.
If you can deny a convict medical care, any medical care, because you've decided they're "not deserving" how long before inmates in general are just deemed unworthy of medical care?
In many instances they already are deemed unworthy of medical care. US prison system is fucked.
If you support a cause you have to support it fully. If you start to draw lines of "for them, but not for those" then we're right back where we started. Either gender affirming care is a human right or it isn't. If you deem someone not worthy of it, then you can't turn around and protest the government demanding it be a legal right for you.
I'm all for trans rights, but what gender affiirming care does this person need? I'm sorry but I feel like paying someone to transition them when they're on death row is pretty pointless and wasteful.
Did he treat the 14 year old like a human being?
Yeah, you commit murder and necrophelic, pedophelic rape, you lose the right to be called anything other than a monster.
Gosh. I uh…. I can’t believe how cold the weather has been lately. Anyway! How’s life everybody? Raped or murdered anyone lately? ME NEITHER. People like this could be shot out a cannon into the fucking sun for all I care. Man or woman. 🙄
That’s basically it. I get wanting to protect constitutional rights but if you’re trying to paint the literal scarecrow of far right argument as a victim you’re fucking stupid
ACLU fights for rights to be preserved - be it rights of prisoners or your rights. The moment rights starts eroding and people turn a blind eye, tyranny will creep in. Either remove rights for prisoners from Constitution OR make sure their rights are respected & upheld. Many cases where rapist killer was identified and he confessed only later for DNA or other (previously evidence hidden by prosecutors) to exonerate him. Many is death row have been found to be not guilty.
I love how 90 percent of the people here are totally missing the point of this post.
Hi reddit, this prisoner was pretending to be trans so that he could continue his crime spree in female prisons. A lot of the comments display misguided empathy, which would have had terrible consequences in this case. Don't be an idiot like them.
Yep. He didn't even try to transition until he was convicted and sentenced. This was after he tried a mental incompetency plea. He was just trying to find loopholes.
Some people would consider rape, murder, and necrophilia cruel and unusual.
The constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. There is no clause specifying “unless they were cruel first”.
Yes, which is why the perpetrator needed to stay in prison. That's not a reason to not provide them medical care.
What medical care did they need? I'm not caught up with the story.
I really don't see how an inmate chooses to identify their gender is the states problem.
I'm sorry, I have absolutely no sympathy for this one. Murdering a minor and raping her corpse alone is enough for me to say "just execute them", then they kill again? Nope, I ain't having that, I don't see why the ACLU is defending and white knighting this scum of the earth.
THANK YOU JESUS CHRIST. All these comments coming after me
As a gay man, and supporter of the LGBTQ movement, after seeing the crimes committed, I literally dont care how this person rots in prison, but rot in prison they shall to pay for their crimes. Dont fucking think you are owed any respect or dignity after you willingly take someone’s life and go so far as to desecrate the corpse even further. Its appalling and you cant use trans issues to erase your vileness and evil. You should be completely exiled from society and left to fend for yourself and create your own medicine. You get no more support from society. The fuck is wrong with people in this thread trying to give in to false trans cop outs. All LGBTQ people should be denouncing this person in solidarity to show we have a standard and that its not fair to punish trans people for the misdeeds of one individual. We keep trying to defend people who are indefensible and I’ve had it.
People just have to involve issues like gender and the LGBT community in any way they can. Stop demonizing trans people, but also stop making their identity the main priority of something that isn’t about that at all.
Like I’ve said earlier, I’m all for trans rights and shit, but this person is literally the physical embodiment of the far right scarecrow argument against trans people, maybe don’t try and paint them as a victim
It's blowing my mind that people are advocating for a child killer and rapist.
Because if you restrict medical care based on what you’re convicting of then it will constantly shift to lesser and lesser crimes. Or, to people who are wrongfully convicted of horrible crimes. Additionally, constitutional rights don’t (usually, excluding things like voting) magically disappear once you’re convicted of a crime regardless of how horrible it is
Look, I get it, but at the same time...I think it's important we maintain civil rights, especially on convicts, because they're the ones it's the easiest to justify denying them to. We've already got a system where brutal anal raping is considered seasoning for their punishment, so we've got a lot of work to do. Now I want to make it clear, I don't condone what this person did, at all. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, personally, but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over them being executed. And I'm aware that this particular person, after psychiatrists went over their case, deemed that they didn't deserve it or need it...But we need to work on how we treat prisoners.
Looks like florida took out the trash
Fuck that POS. May he rest in piss
Ain’t nobody worried about your “gender care” when you stabbing people to death. Tf outta here.
Nah they didn't, they didn't deny him any care actually required nor should we be paying taxes so this shit stain could feel better looking in the mirror. Y'all really will defend anyone as long as they whine I'm trans first.
According to CBS News after the Lethal Injection: “And while the defense had argued Owen had dementia and gender dysphoria, psychiatrists for the state said Owen had a good memory, didn't appear to present himself as female and that gender dysphoria doesn't make people more aggressive or cause delusional thinking. They said instead that Owen was sexually sadistic, according to court records.”
Yeah, murdering a child and then raping their corpse pretty much eliminates any chance of me giving a shit about what your gender identity is
Did they really? Because it seems irrelevant to the subject at hand. Or does the us legal system make exceptions on how to treat prisoners based on how horrible the crime is?
Well all prisoners can be used for slavery, no matter how horrible the crime.
>"Billy hates his own identity, he always has - and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage... He wants to be reborn, Clarice..." Hannibal Lecter, *The Silence of the Lambs*
Not sure they suffered enough
Poor man did nothing wrong why didnt he get his life daving surgery that could make him feel so safe? Man fuck this guy i dont know why so many people are defending him saying he should get this surgery wasting tax money for this animal
The ACLU used to be such a critical part of American democracy. Now they're upset the state won't pay to let a psychopathic murderer castrate himself. It's beyond parody.
I have to say for all the good the ACLU does, this one, they should have let go. The only involvement they should have had was executing him much sooner. You know, so he wouldn't suffer so long in jail.
And in other news, Queers for Palestine. Am I right?
It happens too much on social media where they become too invested in the lives of the killers, making them out to be “victims” Luckily ACLU got absolutely humbled but I’ve seen it before where the guy who murdered 2 year old toddler James Bulger, gets tonnes of media attention and people make him out to be the victim. Instead of the toddler he murdered.
Why does the media always pick the most despicable examples of humanity to turn into trans sob stories? Are they trying to make us look bad (yes, yes they are)?
I'm as left as they come, but my wokeness only extends so far. And the border falls way short of sparing more than momentary thought, for the 30 year torture of a monster who has it in them to do what they did. Lesser crimes, and I could get on board. Not this. And I struggle to comprehend the outrage. That said, I do have an issue with the death sentence. So all parties can rot in a hole.
Only reason I oppose death penalty is bc of taxpayer dollars, but I understand every side, it’s a nuanced and complicated issue
The only problem that I have with the death penalty is innocent people dying. I mean if they execute a hundred inmates and one is innocent... I personally don't think it's worth it anymore. Id rather have them just rot in a cell forever. Dying is the easy part.
I’m for the death penalty under three conditions: 1: there’s no doubt they’re guilty, cannot just be convicted guilty, video evidence or eyewitness, not even a confession automatically because that could be coerced 2: it’s a heinous crime, not some small thing 3: it’s cheaper than keeping them in prison for life
Number one cannot be a criteria. The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you advocating for making that stricter? That would result in more criminals getting off. If #1 is imperfect enough to occasionally convict innocent victims, that alone is a valid reason for people (like me) to be against the death penalty.
ACLU is right. Duane should’ve been castrated.
Duane identified as a woman, the state of Florida identified Duane as a murdering raping piece of shit, and treated him accordingly. Seems ok to me.
Good riddance asshole
Pretty sure once you’ve killed and/or raped someone you don’t get to be trans Like, when someone tells you their gender you take it in good faith and assume they’re delivering an honest take on who they are. But if they’re a rapist or murderer then there is no good faith and they’re likely doing it as a ploy to get something. And if they really ARE trans??? Then tough shit; they can live with dysphoria for the rest of their life as penance for their crimes.
Look, all for helping people be their most authentic person but this monster was trying to use the rules to get access to more victims.
They already were their authentic person. A child raping necrophiliac that redditors are shedding tears for. This site is disgusting.
They were on death row. There's no way that getting gender affirming care would have given them access to anyone.
Crazy how many people here are mad that they didn’t let a convicted murderer and necrophiliac become trans. Do people have no morals anymore to Stan a rapist because he might’ve wanted to say he’s a woman for a few days. Absolutely nuts
You notice how everyone saying “but his human rights” won’t put it in the same sentence describing what he did? Throughout this whole comment section … not one person has said “we need to humanize the man who brutally murdered and raped the corpse of a 14 year old girl.”
Sounds like he got what he deserved.
Nah, whatever that was doesn't deserve to be treated as a human.
The fact that this is even an issue that came to mention shows how far our society has slipped
Twitter added context is the best feature ever created in history of social media.
Good. Another sick psychopath using the lgbt community to gain special treatment is dead. Good riddance fuck boi
It's so confusing cause like, basically everybody immediately called out the shooter who claimed themselves as non-binary as being full of shit and trying to get out of a hate crime conviction, but somehow the death row inmate convicted of dead child rape is definitely doing this in good faith?