Common Dreams reports
In a much-hailed, if modestly problematic, act of righteous revenge, [on Thursday August 4,] an African-American inmate allegedly sucker-punched [...] Dylann Roof--an act that sparked much online praise for the "vigilante hero", a fundraiser for donations to his commissary account, and, finally, the posting of his $100,000 bond by a supporter.
Roof is in protective custody at the Charleston County Detention Center for killing nine African-American churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015. He was in the shower when Dwayne Stafford, a 26-year-old inmate reportedly doing time for either weed violations or strong arm burglary, allegedly got out of his cell, reached Roof, and landed a couple of punches to his face. The sheriff said Roof was attacked "for no reason", which many would argue was less than accurate.
Roof suffered only minor injuries, and his lawyer declined to press charges.
[...] The next day, 18 months after he'd originally been arrested, an anonymous supporter posted [Stafford's] bond, and on Friday he was reportedly freed.
I find that heavy.com typically has the facts quickly on violent crimes.
Previous: [Racially-Motivated Mass Murder in] Charleston, SC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:40PM
That's debatable: many prisoners who are incarcerated, never to be released, nevertheless establish meaningful lives in prison. The life of the mind can be fulfilling, even when isolated from society. Prisons do not have to be hellish places of torment, even though it seems to be an emergent phenomenon of society.
Furthermore, a wrongly-convicted prisoner who is executed can never have his sentence overturned - it is final. In contrast, a person who is vindicated can have their time spent in prison duly compensated for. Until such time as we can perfectly prove beyond all doubt that a prisoner is guilty, execution should be an unacceptable outcome.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:19AM
In contrast, a person who is vindicated can have their time spent in prison duly compensated for.
No, they cannot. Find me a single ex-prisoner who believes that they were duly compensated for all that resulted from their incorrect verdict. Out of the thousands and thousands, you will never be able to find one, I guarantee you that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:37AM
Well since we can't create/reverse time so there is no way to properly compensate these people. I was going to ask for more details and then thought a quick search might help... http://www.innocenceproject.org/compensating-wrongly-convicted/ [innocenceproject.org]
Seems like quite a few states don't even compensate, and those that do don't do a very good job. I think a mid to high tier salary covering the same number of years would be a good start, let the wronged people have financial support to get on their feet and recover from their time. With a minimum of 1 year.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:53AM
It's hypothetical that amends could be made - eg. be wrongly convicted for 10, but spend the rest of your life in multimillionaire retirement, that kind of thing. Of course, the same social impulse that makes prisons hell-holes is the same impulse that prevents the wrongfully-convicted of being properly compensated. It's not perfect or likely, but at least it could happen, as opposed to with a prisoner who has been executed.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @06:08AM
The primary problem with state-sanctioned executions is that the state does not own your life, therefore they do not have the right to take it. Self-sovereignty means you're free to end your own life whenever you choose, but no matter how heinous your crimes, your life remains yours, it is a violation of fundamental human rights for the state to claim ownership of any person's life for any reason. This is why executions will never be anything but an extreme violation of human rights.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:51AM
Then should we never allow our police forces to fire upon an active-shooter who is murdering civilians? Clearly there are some scenarios where the government is not just mandated to take life, but obligated to. The special sovereignty of human life is not absolute and never has been.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @04:36PM
No, we shouldn't. The job of police is to catch criminals so they can be brought before the courts to find out if they're guilty or not. Their job is not to act as judge, jury, and executioner no matter the circumstance. The people being shot at do have the right to self defense, up to and including using deadly force if necessary, but deadly force should never be an option for police, because thats whats known as summary execution [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @07:52PM
So, it's kind of like your mom's basement ;-)