What does it take to forgive the unforgivable? To see beyond the worst mistake someone has made? Today, the New York Times highlighted an article about Brian Dorsey, a man facing execution in Missouri on April 9th, 2024, for murder. In a powerful display of solidarity, over 70 former correctional officers and prison employees have voiced their opposition to this sentence, urging the governor to commute it to life imprisonment. Among them, Timothy Lancaster’s words stand out, shared in a heartfelt letter to the Kansas City Star:
I spent 27 years as a correctional officer and investigator in the Missouri Department of Corrections, including many years at Potosi Correctional Center. I consider myself to be a law-and-order conservative, and I support the death penalty. But I, along with more than 70 current and former Missouri correctional officers, cannot support the April 9 execution of Brian Dorsey.
Full Article Here
So, why would staunch supporters of the death penalty, individuals devoted to correctional work, argue against the execution of a convicted murderer like Dorsey?
Dorsey has been under a death sentence in Missouri for 17 years, and there is no dispute that he committed murder. I strongly support the rights of crime victims, and do not intend any disrespect to Dorsey’s victims here. Yet, far from being the “worst of the worst,” Dorsey exemplifies the growth, transformation and redemption that are possible when someone is committed to turning their life around after making a terrible mistake. I have witnessed Dorsey’s deep and sincere remorse for his crime. He also has not had a single conduct violation during his incarceration, a remarkable record of good behavior.
Full Article Here
Indeed, the debate surrounding the death penalty is fraught with complexity—a gross understatement. moral quandaries abound with no clear-cut answers. My stance? I am against the death penalty, firmly believing its application in the United States to be fundamentally flawed. Yet, acknowledging this doesn’t fully quell the counterarguments echoing in my mind.
Some argue that certain individuals, beyond redemption, pose a perpetual threat to society. This perspective, although harsh, carries its own weight of truth. Not all murderers fit this description, but undoubtedly, some do.
But then, should we bear the cost of a life spent behind bars, especially when the individual poses a continuing threat to others? Is confinement really a superior alternative to a humane execution? These are hard questions and I doubt there is widespread agreement on them. But that’s kind of the point. Justice is not easy.
Brian Dorsey killed two people. He murdered them in cold blood. He may have been on drugs in a mental health break. It doesn’t matter. Brian Dorsey killed two people. He is a murderer who was sentenced to death after pleading guilty to the crime. There is no ambiguity here.
But that’s not exactly true is it? There is no ambiguity to the fact that in 2006 he killed those people. However there is some ambiguity in whether this man truly deserves the strongest punishment the state can give. As Timothy Lancaster says:
“I saw Dorsey’s hardworking, humble personality up close — not just because he is housed in the “honor dorm” at Potosi, but because he has served as the prison barber for well over a decade. This position, in which he cuts the hair and trims the beards of prison staff — even of Wardens Troy Steele and Don Roper — reflects the trust and respect entrusted to him. For many of us, once he started cutting our hair, we wouldn’t let anyone else do the job. Mr. Dorsey is an excellent barber and a kind and respectful man. When I learned that Dorsey had been set to be executed, the news hit me hard.”
These are not the descriptions of a murderer, not in the way I would imagine for a man that is set to be killed by the state.
“There isn’t a nicer guy than Brian. … We know that he was convicted of murder, but that is not the Brian Dorsey that we know.”
Full Article Here
What is Justice Here?
The death penalty is complicated. It always is. But it has to be complicated. If you take the context out of any situation, if you turn a person into a caricature it becomes easy to condemn them to death. Should it be easy to decide that someone needs to die? I don’t think so.
I wanted to write this post because I think that oftentimes our snap response to big ethical questions like the death penalty is “for or against” rather than what’s actually right in that specific case.
Most people likely don’t think that Mr. Dorsey deserves his freedom 16 years after murdering two people. But does it really serve justice for this prison barber, a man who only asks to stay in prison until he dies, to receive the worst punishment the state has to offer?
There are questions about the actions of the public defendants assigned to his case. Personally I find it odd that a man who pled guilty to the crime, showed clear remorse, and was asking for life in prison wasn’t able to negotiate a plea deal for those terms. But, I am not sure that actually changes how I think about this case.
Mr. Dorsey isn’t asking for forgiveness from the court, he isn’t asking for his freedom, simply to be allowed to remain in prison as a barber, helping the small community who know and love him. Sometimes the death penalty can make sense, but it has to be clear from the facts that it is the right decision. Justice is more than revenge, it has to be.
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.
John Rawls
This case has far more nuance that I have given it in this short time and the New York Times article truly is exceptional. I encourage you to do your own research, come to your own conclusions on what you believe. That is what growth is all about.
