9 ms·

Hard to reconcile some of these last words with the reality of their crimes: Juxtapose: I was so glad to leave this world a better, more positive place. It’s

Hard to reconcile some of these last words with the reality of their crimes: Juxtapose: I was so glad to leave this world a better, more positive place. It’s not an easy life with all the negativities. ... I hope I left everyone a plate of food full of happy memories, happiness and no sadness. [0] With this: > On September 11, 1999, Jones murdered his great aunt, 83-year-old Berthena Bryant, bludgeoning her to death with a baseball bat. Afterwards, he stole her money in order to purchase some cocaine. [1] [0] https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/jonesquintinlast.htm https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/jonesquintinlas... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Quintin_Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Quintin_Jones

prmph 4y ago
Depends on what he did between the crime and death. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, and I'm not excusing any crimes, but it is certainly possible to commit serious crimes, and yet be able to say what he did. No one also knows how it felt like to be him. Again, not to excuse any crimes, but a lot of people suffer horribly in silence until they snap.
namdnay 4y ago
The crime was when he was deeply addicted and drugged out of his mind 22 years earlier. I don't find it shocking that he's had another life since. Killing him in 2021 just seems so... pointless
- thinking4real 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - 0xfeba 4y ago
    He said killing, no imprisoning.
- dvt 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Do you think the pain would be less acute after the killer was killed 22 years later?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > there's this thing called justice In pursuit of justice, we sometimes tip over into revenge. Given the fact that we've sent innocent people to their executions, I'm uncomfortable labeling it justice.
    - dejj 4y ago
      There are 3 aspects to criminal justice: - special prevention - general prevention (=deterrence) - revenge
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        I understand it to be: - retribution (revenge) - deterrence - rehabilitation - incapacitation (they can't re-offend if they're in prison or dead) In these sort of discussions about justice online, the first is often cast as illegitimate, the second as impossible, the third as the gold standard, and the fourth is frequently ignored completely. Few people ever defend retribution, so I will here. Many people who are victims of crimes have a desire to see retribution done. If the government does not play at least some lip service to the desire for retribution, then more people will take it into their own hands. They'll seek vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is dangerous to society because it's often capricious and disproportionate. It is better for governments to sate the desire for retribution using official processes which can be checked with safeguards, such as trials.
        namdnay 4y ago
        > If the government does not play at least some lip service to the desire for retribution, then more people will take it into their own hands. They'll seek vigilante justice. If that were the case, we'd see significantly higher amounts of "vigilante justice" in countries that have abolished the death penalty, right? I think "vigilante justice" is more often than not "vigilante policing", when people believe criminals aren't being sufficiently investigated and arrested, not when people believe criminals aren't being sufficiently executed
- itsmemattchung 4y ago
  From Wikipedia: Jones experienced 'brutal conditions' during his childhood, suffering neglect by his parents, sexual assault by his siblings, and extreme poverty.[7][4][8] His mother threatened him with a gun, and when he was seven years old his older siblings forced him to have sex with his stepsister.[8] He shot himself twice, once in the hand to placate gang members and later in the chest in a suicide attempt. He became addicted to drugs by his early teens
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    Yes, contrast this with the bloodlust of The People. We are no so far aware from crucifixions, torture and the brutal death sentences in the circuses. What this awful species, ad populum, calls justice is little more than a boderline erotic enjoyment of the torture of those "who deserve it".
    - skedaddle 4y ago
      Hey don't blame the species!
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      The problem is that people struggle with non-binary thinking. It is not only possible, but probable that this person who has suffered so much is also broken and an anti-social person.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster).
    - fphhotchips 4y ago
      The question is, do you blame the monster for being a monster? Or do you blame the people that made them one? There are valid points both ways. IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society. If you can't explain the crime, maybe the monster is just a monster.
- dokem 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - timeon 4y ago
    > And you would let him. I would not. But I does not mean that I kill people - whether it is murder or capital punishment.
- HardlyCurious 4y ago
  Is it less pointless to keep him in jail for the rest of his life?
- pnf 4y ago
  To be fair. The decades of stays that separate his crime from his punishment were his choice.
TechBro8615 4y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  You've got cause and effect backwards, I suspect. Is it surprising a "say the magic words and everything's forgiven" ideology is particularly appealing to death row inmates?
- nailer 4y ago
  > I'd be asking what it is about Christ that turns people into murderous psychopaths... That's a reasonable question. Christianity does have an emphasis on forgiveness, which I suspect these prison chaplain programs emphasize - so it's more a matter of murderers turning themselves into Christians. However murder is considered a mortal sin that separates one's soul from god and that cannot regularly be forgiven. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin, scroll to 'Actions constituting grave matter' for the list. My grandmother was devout and spent her last few weeks convinced she was going to hell for something I do not know.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > However murder is considered a mortal sin that separates one's soul from god and that cannot regularly be forgiven. By Catholics, specifically. Evangelical Christians don't typically share this belief.
    - none_to_remain 4y ago
      Mortal sins can absolutely be forgiven in Catholicism See for example the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1456
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - nailer 4y ago
hayksaakian 4y ago
is it so hard to believe that someone who spends 20 years in prison might have recognized their mistakes, and set out to do as much good as they can within their constraints?
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Is almost as if they were partially rehabilitated.
jacobsenscott 4y ago
Just because someone was convicted of a crime it doesn't mean they committed the crime. In the case you quoted above who knows, but certainly there are a few wrongful convictions in there. A really barbaric system.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >but certainly there are a few wrongful convictions in there. And that's the best argument against capital punishment. A wrongful conviction with a long (life+$X years) sentence allows for wrongful convictions to not only be reversed, but then the wrongfully convicted can be released, hopefully with some restitution. If someone is wrongly convicted and executed, there's no useful recourse. If someone is correctly convicted of a heinous crime, keeping them off the streets is effective enough to stop them from committing such crimes in our society. What's more, I'd say that decades in a 10x10 box is much worse than the sweet release of death in a few years. I imagine some folks would disagree with that assessment, but that's how I see it. If it turns out later (cf. The Exonerated Five[1]) that they're not actually guilty and we'd heeded the rantings of some people[2], they would likely have been murdered by the state for a crime they didn't commit. How is that fair or appropriate? Sadly, we seem to have forgotten about Blackstone's Formulation[0] here in the US. And more's the pity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio [1] https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/central-park-five https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/central-park-five [2] https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-pen... Edit: Corrected prose.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > A wrongful conviction with a long (life+$X years) sentence allows for wrongful convictions to not only be reversed, but then the wrongfully convicted can be released, hopefully with some restitution. If you've locked someone up for half their lifespan, even in much better conditions than US prisons, even millions wouldn't make up for that, and I doubt we give them millions. Execution takes away someone's whole life, but that's not such a huge step change compared to taking away a substantial portion of their years. We should take false imprisonment just as seriously.
thinking4real 4y ago
“On 12/15/98, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Mathis shot three victims in the head with a .45 caliber pistol at a known drug house in Fort Bend County, Texas. One of the victims, a 15-year-old Hispanic female survived the shooting, paralyzed from the chest down. Mathis reportedly turned the gun on two other intended victims, however, when he attempted to pull the trigger, the gun either misfired or had been jammed.” “Yes, sir. I just want to say to all my supporters, family and friends; I love y'all and appreciate y'all. To the ones representing me today, thank you for everything. The system has failed me. This is a miscarriage of justice. There are people on death row that need help. I love my family. I love you too, Mom. I am alright. I asked the Lord to have mercy on me and I hope He has mercy on these people carrying out this mass slaughter. They have no respect for humanity. To Melanie, I never meant to hurt you. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not asking for your forgiveness. All I have to worry about is God forgiving me. I hope you get better and for the doctors to continue to take care of you. Take care of my mother for me. To everybody, know that I love you and I am OK. Lord, have mercy on my soul. Lord, have mercy on my soul. Lord, have mercy on these peoples' soul. Life is not supposed to end this way. No more pain and frustration. When I knock at the gates, they will open up and let me in. To my mom and everybody, I love you. I can feel it right now. My life, my life.” Interesting seeing the visualization someone else linked that “love” was the most common word. This person used the word love 4 times, while simultaneously denying his responsibility and saying that it’s the rest of the world that’s bad.
- dotgov 4y ago
  He lived in extreme poverty, was neglected by his parents, got sexually assaulted by his siblings and was forced to have sex with his stepsister when he was seven. He shot himself twice, once trying to kill himself. The world he lived in was bad.
  - seszett 4y ago
    That's a different person, although his world was probably not much better.
  - loeg 4y ago
citizenpaul 4y ago
I've seen a number of these things and can only come to one conclusion. Most of the people on death row are deeply mentally ill. The state is effectively using prison in place of mental health facilities. For instance the person you are quoting also mentions friends and family in his final words. Yet he writes his final words specifically to the warden. This does not seem congruent with a sound mind. More like he is mentally unable to connect relationships and really has no frends or family and the warden is the closest thing to a authority/parental figure he has. I could easily be wrong in my intrepretation.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  You're assuming that mental illness is something that can be cured, and that the cure is not equivalent or worse than killing them. Quite frankly, our brains are plastic, but not that plastic. It's possible (and we don't know enough about brain structure to say for certain either way) that someone can get into an antisocial enough state that it's impossible, by ethical means, to retrain them, to get them out of that state. On a motherboard, if you flash your bios wrong you can pull the flash ROM and replace it with a new one. Brains are integrated packages and you can only reprogram them by their IO interfaces, and their IO interfaces are shut down or stuck in a boot loop, or simply running such a hardened update mechanism that any attempt to update the firmware simply adds your attempt to a blacklist and removes the interface you attempted to use. This analogy is incredibly weak: Human minds are not computers. Put another way: Someone, particularly those on death row, might be so recalcitrant and antisocial that any (ethical) attempt to teach them teaches the opposite reaction, either from spite or from hate. You reward them for good behavior and they make an active attempt not to do that anymore to spite you. You punish them for bad behavior and it only reinforces their hate for you. You do the opposite, rewarding bad behavior and punishing the good, you're making negative progress. Alternatively, imagine that you have invented a miracle drug that can render a brain fully plastic; Rewrite it to your whim. Is it ever ethical to use such a drug? I say no. It is an unacceptable moral hazard to ever use such a drug. The act of killing is a loss for both parties; Obviously more for the killed, but it is a deep scar that the killer bears, too. Taking on that scar is sometimes worth it. If you were to simply reprogram, from scratch, your convicts into wonderful (or even simply acceptable) people, you would have turned that around. There would be something to gain from "personality death-row". Making it socially acceptable to forcibly reprogram your opponents and feel good about it is a dystopia greater than any that a sci-fi writer has written, and I'm sure many have tried and not gotten the full horrors that it would unleash.
itisit 4y ago
Dare I say I find it rather comforting to know these people no longer walk the earth. https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/obryanronald.jpg https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/obryanronald.jp... https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/garrettjohnny.jpg https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/garrettjohnny.j... https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/wootenlarry.html https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/wootenlarry.htm...
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >Dare I say I find it rather comforting to know these people no longer walk the earth. And if, next week, evidence is found that one or more of those folks didn't commit the crimes for which they were convicted -- are you still going to be comforted by their deaths? I'd say that being in prison serves essentially the same purpose, had those folks not been executed, they'd be in prison and that's enough comfort for me. Isn't that enough "comfort" for you? That's not a jab at you. Rather, I'd like to understand why you feel that simply removing such folks from society (i.e., a long prison sentence) isn't sufficient, and death is the correct response? Is there something I'm missing?
  - itisit 4y ago
    > Isn't that enough "comfort" for you? No, it isn't. There is a certain peace and relief seeing these individuals brought to death. I don't mean to come across as provocative. To think of someone like Anders Breivik living in relative comfort after the atrocity he committed, it's simply absurd.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >No, it isn't. There is a certain peace and relief seeing these individuals brought to death. I don't mean to come across as provocative. To think of someone like Anders Breivik living in relative comfort after the atrocity he committed, it's simply absurd. So it's retribution, not accountability or the safety of society that interests you? But if we go with your preference, while Anders Breivik might suffer the same as those he murdered, these guys[0] (among many, many others) would have been murdered (and incorrectly so) for no reason other than the desire to satisfy your (and that of others, not singling you out per se, although you did express that belief) desire for revenge and retribution -- even if those murdered by the state didn't actually commit such a crime. I consider Blackstone's Formulation[1] to be much more appropriate. And I'd also say that being confined for the rest of your life, even in a dull, but comfortable environment meets the need for the safety of society and the need for accountability to the law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
jollyllama 4y ago
"Live, laugh, love"
nickelcitymario 4y ago
Another way of looking at is that 22 years ago he did a terrible thing that he thought he would never do and has regretted ever since. This does not absolve him of shit, but: We then collectively, as a society, took 22 years to murder him back. Are we going to claim we did it as a mistake? Is ours a crime of passion? What excuse do we have for our violence? "He did it first"? So I find it hard to reconcile that we are living in modern, democratic, freedom-loving countries, and the best we could come up with in response to murder was more murder. When we kill inmates, we torture them for decades with the knowledge that they will be murdered for their crimes and it will hurt. We deprive them of all freedom in the meantime. Decades of knowing that society as a whole hates you so much that they locked you away out of sight and want your blood. We then surround them with the most violent people we have in society, and offer them little protection from each other. And then finally, one day, if they survive the ordeal, we kill them and call it justice. That's what I have a hard time reconciling.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  This is such a foolish way of looking at public order. The point is not whether murder is wrong or whether punishing is wrong, because after all we are not children arguing about right and wrong. Rather, we need a public that is free of murderers and so when people engage in antisocial behavior we remove them from the public. We don't remove someone for X years because we think they "deserve" to be removed for X years -- we remove them for X years because that's how it takes them to age out of being prone to commit acts of more violence. It is about keeping society going. The moment you start getting into debates about right and wrong, you prove that you have no interest in keeping society going and are instead focused on making yourself feel good by making various philosophical pronouncements which are ultimately quite arbitrary. But what is not arbitrary is whether people can walk the streets safely at night or not. Do we live in a peaceful society or do we live in a society in which the wealthy barricade themselves in and hire private security while the poor are left to fend for themselves? That's what matters, and it's all that matters, because public justice is not an ethics class, it's a class about how to create safe streets so that society can continue to function in peace. The moment you stop caring about how to create a peaceful society, what you get is a violent society that eventually disintegrates into warring clans and someone will rise to the top who can promise order, and he will not care a bit about your philosophical debates. And the people will support him, because not worrying about being attacked as you walk about the city is a required part of having cities in the first place. And we want cities, we want high density living in which strangers can interact with each other without violence -- we want civilization. Therefore we adopt policies that defend that civilization independent of any musings about who has the right to take a life or imprison someone and what that means for someone's soul, etc. It is only those people who take it for granted that they are living in a peaceful society, who are able to engage in these musings about what is right and wrong. But God help the society that takes them seriously or listens to their advice.
ashwagary 4y ago
Hasn't the Innocence Project saved a non-trivial amount of people from death row? The sad thing is a percentage of these last words are made by innocent people. The US justice system isn't perfect, not even close.

prmph 4y ago

Depends on what he did between the crime and death. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, and I'm not excusing any crimes, but it is certainly possible to commit serious crimes, and yet be able to say what he did. No one also knows how it felt like to be him. Again, not to excuse any crimes, but a lot of people suffer horribly in silence until they snap.

namdnay 4y ago

The crime was when he was deeply addicted and drugged out of his mind 22 years earlier. I don't find it shocking that he's had another life since. Killing him in 2021 just seems so... pointless

thinking4real 4y ago
[flagged]
- 0xfeba 4y ago
  He said killing, no imprisoning.
dvt 4y ago
[flagged]
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Do you think the pain would be less acute after the killer was killed 22 years later?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > there's this thing called justice In pursuit of justice, we sometimes tip over into revenge. Given the fact that we've sent innocent people to their executions, I'm uncomfortable labeling it justice.
  - dejj 4y ago
    There are 3 aspects to criminal justice: - special prevention - general prevention (=deterrence) - revenge
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      I understand it to be: - retribution (revenge) - deterrence - rehabilitation - incapacitation (they can't re-offend if they're in prison or dead) In these sort of discussions about justice online, the first is often cast as illegitimate, the second as impossible, the third as the gold standard, and the fourth is frequently ignored completely. Few people ever defend retribution, so I will here. Many people who are victims of crimes have a desire to see retribution done. If the government does not play at least some lip service to the desire for retribution, then more people will take it into their own hands. They'll seek vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is dangerous to society because it's often capricious and disproportionate. It is better for governments to sate the desire for retribution using official processes which can be checked with safeguards, such as trials.
      - namdnay 4y ago
        > If the government does not play at least some lip service to the desire for retribution, then more people will take it into their own hands. They'll seek vigilante justice. If that were the case, we'd see significantly higher amounts of "vigilante justice" in countries that have abolished the death penalty, right? I think "vigilante justice" is more often than not "vigilante policing", when people believe criminals aren't being sufficiently investigated and arrested, not when people believe criminals aren't being sufficiently executed
itsmemattchung 4y ago
From Wikipedia: Jones experienced 'brutal conditions' during his childhood, suffering neglect by his parents, sexual assault by his siblings, and extreme poverty.[7][4][8] His mother threatened him with a gun, and when he was seven years old his older siblings forced him to have sex with his stepsister.[8] He shot himself twice, once in the hand to placate gang members and later in the chest in a suicide attempt. He became addicted to drugs by his early teens
- mjburgess 4y ago
  Yes, contrast this with the bloodlust of The People. We are no so far aware from crucifixions, torture and the brutal death sentences in the circuses. What this awful species, ad populum, calls justice is little more than a boderline erotic enjoyment of the torture of those "who deserve it".
  - skedaddle 4y ago
    Hey don't blame the species!
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The problem is that people struggle with non-binary thinking. It is not only possible, but probable that this person who has suffered so much is also broken and an anti-social person.
- dionidium 4y ago
  There’s something very odd to me about the modern progressive position that, more or less, if you can explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse it. That description of his childhood works for me in sociological terms — let’s avoid stuff that we know to create monsters — but not on individual ones (i.e. the monster, having been created, is indeed a monster).
  - fphhotchips 4y ago
    The question is, do you blame the monster for being a monster? Or do you blame the people that made them one? There are valid points both ways. IMO I think the idea is that if you can explain the crime then maybe the monster was created by society and thus can be redeemed by society. If you can't explain the crime, maybe the monster is just a monster.
dokem 4y ago
[flagged]
- timeon 4y ago
  > And you would let him. I would not. But I does not mean that I kill people - whether it is murder or capital punishment.
HardlyCurious 4y ago
Is it less pointless to keep him in jail for the rest of his life?
pnf 4y ago
To be fair. The decades of stays that separate his crime from his punishment were his choice.

TechBro8615 4y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 4y ago
You've got cause and effect backwards, I suspect. Is it surprising a "say the magic words and everything's forgiven" ideology is particularly appealing to death row inmates?
nailer 4y ago
> I'd be asking what it is about Christ that turns people into murderous psychopaths... That's a reasonable question. Christianity does have an emphasis on forgiveness, which I suspect these prison chaplain programs emphasize - so it's more a matter of murderers turning themselves into Christians. However murder is considered a mortal sin that separates one's soul from god and that cannot regularly be forgiven. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin, scroll to 'Actions constituting grave matter' for the list. My grandmother was devout and spent her last few weeks convinced she was going to hell for something I do not know.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > However murder is considered a mortal sin that separates one's soul from god and that cannot regularly be forgiven. By Catholics, specifically. Evangelical Christians don't typically share this belief.
  - none_to_remain 4y ago
    Mortal sins can absolutely be forgiven in Catholicism See for example the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1456
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nailer 4y ago

hayksaakian 4y ago

is it so hard to believe that someone who spends 20 years in prison might have recognized their mistakes, and set out to do as much good as they can within their constraints?

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Is almost as if they were partially rehabilitated.

jacobsenscott 4y ago

Just because someone was convicted of a crime it doesn't mean they committed the crime. In the case you quoted above who knows, but certainly there are a few wrongful convictions in there. A really barbaric system.

nobody9999 4y ago
>but certainly there are a few wrongful convictions in there. And that's the best argument against capital punishment. A wrongful conviction with a long (life+$X years) sentence allows for wrongful convictions to not only be reversed, but then the wrongfully convicted can be released, hopefully with some restitution. If someone is wrongly convicted and executed, there's no useful recourse. If someone is correctly convicted of a heinous crime, keeping them off the streets is effective enough to stop them from committing such crimes in our society. What's more, I'd say that decades in a 10x10 box is much worse than the sweet release of death in a few years. I imagine some folks would disagree with that assessment, but that's how I see it. If it turns out later (cf. The Exonerated Five[1]) that they're not actually guilty and we'd heeded the rantings of some people[2], they would likely have been murdered by the state for a crime they didn't commit. How is that fair or appropriate? Sadly, we seem to have forgotten about Blackstone's Formulation[0] here in the US. And more's the pity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio [1] https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/central-park-five https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/central-park-five [2] https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-pen... Edit: Corrected prose.
- lmm 4y ago
  > A wrongful conviction with a long (life+$X years) sentence allows for wrongful convictions to not only be reversed, but then the wrongfully convicted can be released, hopefully with some restitution. If you've locked someone up for half their lifespan, even in much better conditions than US prisons, even millions wouldn't make up for that, and I doubt we give them millions. Execution takes away someone's whole life, but that's not such a huge step change compared to taking away a substantial portion of their years. We should take false imprisonment just as seriously.

thinking4real 4y ago

“On 12/15/98, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Mathis shot three victims in the head with a .45 caliber pistol at a known drug house in Fort Bend County, Texas. One of the victims, a 15-year-old Hispanic female survived the shooting, paralyzed from the chest down. Mathis reportedly turned the gun on two other intended victims, however, when he attempted to pull the trigger, the gun either misfired or had been jammed.” “Yes, sir. I just want to say to all my supporters, family and friends; I love y'all and appreciate y'all. To the ones representing me today, thank you for everything. The system has failed me. This is a miscarriage of justice. There are people on death row that need help. I love my family. I love you too, Mom. I am alright. I asked the Lord to have mercy on me and I hope He has mercy on these people carrying out this mass slaughter. They have no respect for humanity. To Melanie, I never meant to hurt you. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not asking for your forgiveness. All I have to worry about is God forgiving me. I hope you get better and for the doctors to continue to take care of you. Take care of my mother for me. To everybody, know that I love you and I am OK. Lord, have mercy on my soul. Lord, have mercy on my soul. Lord, have mercy on these peoples' soul. Life is not supposed to end this way. No more pain and frustration. When I knock at the gates, they will open up and let me in. To my mom and everybody, I love you. I can feel it right now. My life, my life.” Interesting seeing the visualization someone else linked that “love” was the most common word. This person used the word love 4 times, while simultaneously denying his responsibility and saying that it’s the rest of the world that’s bad.

dotgov 4y ago
He lived in extreme poverty, was neglected by his parents, got sexually assaulted by his siblings and was forced to have sex with his stepsister when he was seven. He shot himself twice, once trying to kill himself. The world he lived in was bad.
- seszett 4y ago
  That's a different person, although his world was probably not much better.
- loeg 4y ago

citizenpaul 4y ago

I've seen a number of these things and can only come to one conclusion. Most of the people on death row are deeply mentally ill. The state is effectively using prison in place of mental health facilities. For instance the person you are quoting also mentions friends and family in his final words. Yet he writes his final words specifically to the warden. This does not seem congruent with a sound mind. More like he is mentally unable to connect relationships and really has no frends or family and the warden is the closest thing to a authority/parental figure he has. I could easily be wrong in my intrepretation.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
You're assuming that mental illness is something that can be cured, and that the cure is not equivalent or worse than killing them. Quite frankly, our brains are plastic, but not that plastic. It's possible (and we don't know enough about brain structure to say for certain either way) that someone can get into an antisocial enough state that it's impossible, by ethical means, to retrain them, to get them out of that state. On a motherboard, if you flash your bios wrong you can pull the flash ROM and replace it with a new one. Brains are integrated packages and you can only reprogram them by their IO interfaces, and their IO interfaces are shut down or stuck in a boot loop, or simply running such a hardened update mechanism that any attempt to update the firmware simply adds your attempt to a blacklist and removes the interface you attempted to use. This analogy is incredibly weak: Human minds are not computers. Put another way: Someone, particularly those on death row, might be so recalcitrant and antisocial that any (ethical) attempt to teach them teaches the opposite reaction, either from spite or from hate. You reward them for good behavior and they make an active attempt not to do that anymore to spite you. You punish them for bad behavior and it only reinforces their hate for you. You do the opposite, rewarding bad behavior and punishing the good, you're making negative progress. Alternatively, imagine that you have invented a miracle drug that can render a brain fully plastic; Rewrite it to your whim. Is it ever ethical to use such a drug? I say no. It is an unacceptable moral hazard to ever use such a drug. The act of killing is a loss for both parties; Obviously more for the killed, but it is a deep scar that the killer bears, too. Taking on that scar is sometimes worth it. If you were to simply reprogram, from scratch, your convicts into wonderful (or even simply acceptable) people, you would have turned that around. There would be something to gain from "personality death-row". Making it socially acceptable to forcibly reprogram your opponents and feel good about it is a dystopia greater than any that a sci-fi writer has written, and I'm sure many have tried and not gotten the full horrors that it would unleash.

itisit 4y ago

Dare I say I find it rather comforting to know these people no longer walk the earth. https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/obryanronald.jpg https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/obryanronald.jp... https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/garrettjohnny.jpg https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/garrettjohnny.j... https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/wootenlarry.html https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/death_row/dr_info/wootenlarry.htm...

nobody9999 4y ago
>Dare I say I find it rather comforting to know these people no longer walk the earth. And if, next week, evidence is found that one or more of those folks didn't commit the crimes for which they were convicted -- are you still going to be comforted by their deaths? I'd say that being in prison serves essentially the same purpose, had those folks not been executed, they'd be in prison and that's enough comfort for me. Isn't that enough "comfort" for you? That's not a jab at you. Rather, I'd like to understand why you feel that simply removing such folks from society (i.e., a long prison sentence) isn't sufficient, and death is the correct response? Is there something I'm missing?
- itisit 4y ago
  > Isn't that enough "comfort" for you? No, it isn't. There is a certain peace and relief seeing these individuals brought to death. I don't mean to come across as provocative. To think of someone like Anders Breivik living in relative comfort after the atrocity he committed, it's simply absurd.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >No, it isn't. There is a certain peace and relief seeing these individuals brought to death. I don't mean to come across as provocative. To think of someone like Anders Breivik living in relative comfort after the atrocity he committed, it's simply absurd. So it's retribution, not accountability or the safety of society that interests you? But if we go with your preference, while Anders Breivik might suffer the same as those he murdered, these guys[0] (among many, many others) would have been murdered (and incorrectly so) for no reason other than the desire to satisfy your (and that of others, not singling you out per se, although you did express that belief) desire for revenge and retribution -- even if those murdered by the state didn't actually commit such a crime. I consider Blackstone's Formulation[1] to be much more appropriate. And I'd also say that being confined for the rest of your life, even in a dull, but comfortable environment meets the need for the safety of society and the need for accountability to the law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

jollyllama 4y ago

"Live, laugh, love"

nickelcitymario 4y ago

Another way of looking at is that 22 years ago he did a terrible thing that he thought he would never do and has regretted ever since. This does not absolve him of shit, but: We then collectively, as a society, took 22 years to murder him back. Are we going to claim we did it as a mistake? Is ours a crime of passion? What excuse do we have for our violence? "He did it first"? So I find it hard to reconcile that we are living in modern, democratic, freedom-loving countries, and the best we could come up with in response to murder was more murder. When we kill inmates, we torture them for decades with the knowledge that they will be murdered for their crimes and it will hurt. We deprive them of all freedom in the meantime. Decades of knowing that society as a whole hates you so much that they locked you away out of sight and want your blood. We then surround them with the most violent people we have in society, and offer them little protection from each other. And then finally, one day, if they survive the ordeal, we kill them and call it justice. That's what I have a hard time reconciling.

rsj_hn 4y ago
This is such a foolish way of looking at public order. The point is not whether murder is wrong or whether punishing is wrong, because after all we are not children arguing about right and wrong. Rather, we need a public that is free of murderers and so when people engage in antisocial behavior we remove them from the public. We don't remove someone for X years because we think they "deserve" to be removed for X years -- we remove them for X years because that's how it takes them to age out of being prone to commit acts of more violence. It is about keeping society going. The moment you start getting into debates about right and wrong, you prove that you have no interest in keeping society going and are instead focused on making yourself feel good by making various philosophical pronouncements which are ultimately quite arbitrary. But what is not arbitrary is whether people can walk the streets safely at night or not. Do we live in a peaceful society or do we live in a society in which the wealthy barricade themselves in and hire private security while the poor are left to fend for themselves? That's what matters, and it's all that matters, because public justice is not an ethics class, it's a class about how to create safe streets so that society can continue to function in peace. The moment you stop caring about how to create a peaceful society, what you get is a violent society that eventually disintegrates into warring clans and someone will rise to the top who can promise order, and he will not care a bit about your philosophical debates. And the people will support him, because not worrying about being attacked as you walk about the city is a required part of having cities in the first place. And we want cities, we want high density living in which strangers can interact with each other without violence -- we want civilization. Therefore we adopt policies that defend that civilization independent of any musings about who has the right to take a life or imprison someone and what that means for someone's soul, etc. It is only those people who take it for granted that they are living in a peaceful society, who are able to engage in these musings about what is right and wrong. But God help the society that takes them seriously or listens to their advice.

ashwagary 4y ago

Hasn't the Innocence Project saved a non-trivial amount of people from death row? The sad thing is a percentage of these last words are made by innocent people. The US justice system isn't perfect, not even close.