>

I don't give a shit what this person calls themselves, the point is they're a murderer, this fuckin trans headline is a distraction attempting to illicit outrage
“I am loving and caring person” - except when I’m a psychopathic raging rapist and murderer, that only happens sometimes. >

Nobody's perfect. >

Pobody’s nerfect >

Not the first time a murderer rapist has been executed though, which is the important thing. >

The issue is that the jury were deadlocked and didn’t rule for the death penalty. Missouri is one of two States (the other being Indiana) that allow a judge to overrule the jury and arbitrarily impose the death sentence. >

I'd be really interested to know what the jury vote on that was. If it was 6 to 6 it would be pretty outrageous that the judge handed down the dp, 11 to 1 maybe not so much. Obviously death penalty opponents were unsuccessful in the appeals courts on this point. >

I did find out that:

[The jury] rejected three out of four aggravating circumstances that would allow for a capital sentence, but couldn't decide on the fourth

This being the case, the judge l’s capital penalty sentence does feel more capricious than not. >

No, how many of the 12 jurors voted for the death penalty vs those who voted against? That they rejected 3 of the 4 aggravating factors is irrelevant because they obviously accepted one which is all you need to impose the death penalty. >


they obviously accepted one

They didn't, though. The jury unanimously rejected 3 factors, but the fourth was split with some jurors rejecting all 4. >

My man, at least some of them voted for the fourth. The question is, how many? >

Gender does not matter when you murder another human being. >

I would bet that it does in most places. >

Murdering rapist put down for their crimes. >

unjustly without a jury >

What does gender have to do with killing a killer? >

Maybe don't commit murder >

It wasn't just murder, also stalking and rape. >

Why the fuck does it matter that the person is transgender? >

thats how u get clicks >

Well, that’s a real step forward for diversity and inclusiveness. Good job by her. >

From life to death?  Yes. 
And HER transition. Don’t be that guy. That guy’s a douche. >

It’s a male. He sexually assaulted a child, then raped and murdered a woman. This is not a crime committed by a tragic woman-in-a-man’s body. Stop being such a handmaiden for actual rapists and murderers. Chrissakes. >

Would you misgender a cisgender person if they were heinous enough?
No? Okay? So why are you misgendering this person? Being trans and being an absolutely deplorable individual aren't tied to each other, they can coexist. >

I really hate that people think transgender is a necessary angle to this story. 'Murderer and rapist was executed' - simple. >

Exactly. As a trans person myself, i can say the the point is often that things don’t need to be unnecessarily gendered. This is one of those times. >

Is this supposed to portray her as a pioneer in equality? >

Representation matters >

They raped and brutally murdered Beverly Guenther, yes you can repent all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that you took someone’s life. A crime was committed. >

Who the hell cares about the gender identity of a scumbag criminal >

I dunno, other scumbag criminals? >

Why is it at all relevant that she is transgender? >

Why not use inert gas asphyxiation or firing squad? 
Lethal injection is a ridiculous parody of a medical procedure that often time results in a painful death. In other words, cruel and unusual. >

Inert gas asphyxiation takes a long time and will cause the body to turn pale sickly blue in front of witnesses. A firing squad is gory and if they miss or the first shot doesn't do it then they have to fire again on a potentially screaming inmate. Lethal injection is chosen because people think it will be easier to watch or to do to someone >

Ugh, that sounds too plausible >

Honest question…what does her gender have to do with the crime?..if she did the crime the result is the same. >

The death penalty makes me incredibly upset, but it’s not like she was innocent. Gender doesn’t really matter in this situation - it just feels like clickbait. She committed a serious crime, as have plenty of other people who find themselves in prison or on death row. It’s no different than any of those cases. >

This is ground-breaking and very progressive of Missouri. Kudos. >

End the death penalty. >

She did it back at 2006! Why it took so long to her execution? >

Executions always take a long time to happen due to appeals and the red tape involved in ending a human life. >

Its intend to be slow. To make damn sure the person is worth of being killed, and even then they get it wrong >

She'll always be a part of the history books now. >

The headline implies this was because they were trans, not because they were a murdering rapist. So, someone needs to update that. >

Not really, it's pretty common to write that kind of detail into the title e.g. "first woman to be executed in this state" etc. >

It’s disingenuous to do that, and causes conflict. They should write, “rapist and murderer to become first openly trans person to be executed” but they don’t. >

Hey guys good news. We no longer have to pay for a murderers stay in prison. >

we paid a whole lot more to take her out of it.
It is a lie to say that the death penalty saves money. >

Yearly costs and execution costs are strictly related to death row inmates. Not the general population of criminals that do bad stuff.
Also nice try changing the subject to MURDER TRIALS specifically ones that pursue the death penalty. That's not what we're talking about but whatevs. Be a champion for convicted criminals. I have no use to talk to you
Sad. Wall of text and your analysis is very shoddy. >

I'll never understand how killing a person brings someone peace. >

This is not a woman’s crime. Would you compel his victims —the  child he assaulted with his penis, the woman he raped and murdered — to refer to him as a female? Compel them to testify that they were attacked, assaulted, raped by a fellow woman? It’s disgusting that ppl that I thought were progressives refuse to draw a line, and support women — actual female victims. >

State sanctioned murder >

The great thing about dead murderers is we don't have to worry about them murdering anyone anymore.
I don't want revenge and dgaf if they're "punished", I just don't think their potential for rehabilitation overrides the risk we expose to others just by continuing to be around someone that we know to be dangerously violent. >

Except, by the recent stats I found, of released murderers the recidivism rate for further murders is on the order of 0.002, and that's in a penal justice system. We don't have strong systems of restorative or rehabilitative justice in place nearly anywhere despite the positive results in studies, and certainly very few social safety nets, the idea that it's better to just kill them so we don't have to worry is barbaric.
Not only is the death penalty more expensive and more time consuming, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is a good system of deterrence. If it did discourage the most violent crimes then why do states never have a lack of people to kill?
That's also neglecting the very real, and not unheard of, chance of executing innocents. You cannot compensate a dead guy for false imprisonment. >

How many murderers in prison have escaped and murdered again?
Who determines when there is no ambiguity in a case? You expect and trust 100% of judges now and in the future to have perfect judgement on these decisions?
You’re also completely ignoring the psychological effects it has on everyone involved with carrying out the execution.  You’re having people regularly kill people, and expecting it not have any psychological effects which then possibly manifest in ugly ways. >

These are really good questions. Murderers put us in difficult ethical dilemmas where there is no perfect solution that prevents everyone from being harmed.
For your first question, I think we need to trust our multiple layers of the justice system, laws, and when we find them lacking, improve them. Especially when keeping them free from corruption. If we can't do this, then why do we allow anyone to be imprisoned? Failures of the justice system are tragic, and inevitable (at least unless we can someday eliminate them with technology).
While we can't be perfect, we also know that doing nothing to protect citizens from violence will result in more harm. So we have to have a justice system. And we have to push to make it better all the time.
You're also very right to point out the difficulty of having to hire and train killers for the state. We do this in criminal justice and the military. And I think both are the lesser evil than not having people who perform those roles of protection. Until people stop being violent, we are going to need people who will protect others from violence.
So it all comes down to how we ethically define our obligation to protect people in our society.
Let's consider a dillema scenario:
You have two murderers in front of you. You can order execution for them both, or you can set them free, and one of them will kill someone else at some point in the future. 
I personally believe we should execute both in this simplified scenario. I'm also fine with life imprisonment (with no chance of parole) as long as whoever they interact with is there voluntarily and understanding the risks, or also incarcerated for similar levels of violence. This would still be a difficult decision for me, because they still have an opportunity to victimize people while in prison, regardless of how many precautions we take.
If I release these people, I will become responsible for the future victim's death because I enabled it. Their chance at rehabilitation is not worth more than an innocent person's safety. 
What would you believe in this scenario?
Edit: I missed calling back to your true first question about how many convicted murderers murder again. I'm not sure that good data on the types of murderers who get put on death row exists, but for the general murderer population (most of which do prison time), they seem to murder again at a rate of between 1:33 and 1:50 (links in my post above). These rates are double the rates that other violent criminals are convicted of murder at. They also do not include context for people who murdered more than one person at a time, or those who aren't caught for murder (~50% of murders go unsolved).