Woman strangled during overnight visit with her husband at a California prison
Woman strangled during overnight visit with her husband at a California prison
www.theguardian.com
Woman strangled during overnight visit with her husband at a California prison
Summary
Stephanie Diane Dowells, 62, was strangled during an overnight visit with her husband, David Brinson, at Mule Creek state prison in California.
Brinson, serving life without parole for four murders, claimed Dowells passed out, but authorities ruled her death a homicide.
This marks the second strangulation death during a family visit at the prison in a year; Tania Thomas was killed in July 2024 while visiting inmate Anthony Curry. Investigations are ongoing.
California is one of four states allowing family visits to maintain positive relationships.
Which begs the question, at what point is the death penalty a reasonable option?
People here love to talk about killing billionaires, who kill with paper.
Yeah, obviously the only two options are allowing overnight conjugal visits, or straight up killing them. Nothing in between.
What a fucking ridiculous thing to say.
If you believe the legal system to be 100% effective then a death penalty makes sense
However since in reality no legal system is 100% effective, by allowing death penalty, you are allowing a certain percentage of people to be murdered legally that have not commited the crimes they were convicted of
people are getting caught up in semantics instead of answering your question, so ill give an opinion as to why its different.
wealthy people are not subject to the same laws and punishments, based souly on their wealth and power getting in the way of the "normal" judiciary process. compared to similar crimes and punishments done by someone who is not in the same class.
the death penalty is also used as a tool to silence political enemies and dissidents, especially in political systems that align with fascism, authoritarianism, etc. (itll start becoming more common in the states, they will just label political rivals and dissidents as "terrorists" more often) whether they commited the crime or not.
essentially, why we may want to redistribute the wealth or "call for the death" of billionaires, its more so that out of everyone, even lowly murderers, their very existence, at the moment they HOARD 1 billion dollars, kills roughly 13,000 people who could have been lifted out of extreme poverty, by that same amount of money, per year, but instead succumb to poverty related deaths.
someone like elon musk as an example, just holding on to a (volatile) 348 billion, causes ROUGHLY 1,000 deaths per day, of people living in extreme poverty, just by him simply holding on to that money. the top 1% in general contribute to roughly 9,159 deaths per day just by hoarding their wealth.
21,500 people on average die from extreme poverty, per day.
they collectively contribute to killing nearly half of the worlds poorest people each day, so that they can have fancy things, and have fancy friends, and do fancy stuff.
that is colder than anything that even the most mentally deranged "lower class" serial killer has ever done.
at least in my personal opinion.
It's not that he doesn't deserve it or lack of evidence. It's because the state shouldn't have that authority. At all. Ever. Look at the fuckery going on in the Whitehouse. Ten years ago 90% of people would've said this isn't even possible. Close that door, lock it, throw away the key. It's not about justice for in one case, it's more important to prevent greater injustice.
Raises the question. Begs the question is a very different thing.
How about never? Government should never have to decide to kill anyone unless ifs for a respectable death by euthanasia
Locking folks up for life is cheaper. I'd be fine leaving Elon on a deserted island somewhere around Point Nemo and occasionally airdropping food and the like.