In 2015, Billingsley was sentenced to 30 years in prison, with 16 years suspended, after he pleaded guilty to a first-degree sex offense, court records show.
The Maryland sex offender registry shows he was released from prison in October. The registry classified him in “tier 3,” which includes the most serious charges and requires offenders to register for life.
Any system that classifies things has two types of errors: false positives and false negatives. As you increase one you decrease the other. It’s as simple as that. So if you want to be 100% sure you put every bad person in prison you just put everyone in prison. Anything short of that you’re going to miss some. How many innocent people being tortured or killed by the system does it take to equal the value of killing or torturing one guilty person or even keeping one guilty person in prison for the rest of their lives?
Stories like this primarily exist to justify massive amounts of violence by the state to ostensibly prevent things like this… except they never actually do. The criminal legal system is the only system that uses its own failure to perpetually justify additional investment. As long as you have prisons, you will have this. You will have people who go to prison and become more dangerous. You will have people falsely imprisoned and even murdered. You will have police murdering people regularly and getting away with it in the name of “preventing” crimes like this. All you need to do is look at the clearance rates for police and the recitivism rate for prisons to see that they just aren’t worth the investment.
Until we shift to a public health model of public safety, this is guaranteed. Public health approachs like investment in early childhood education, restorative justice systems, and making mental healthcare more accessible have been proven repeatedly to have multiple times higher return on investment than police or prisons.
While revenge feels good and feels intuitive based on the history of the legal system, it doesn’t fit with modern psychology. Classifier based punitive legal systems must always either cause suffering by action or inaction because that’s part of the fundamental definiton of classifiers and punitive systems. Making sure people like this are in prison means making sure innocent people are also in prison. Is it worth it?
It’s disappointing to see you getting down voted like this.
Like sure, this guy probably shouldn’t be on the streets, but how many innocent people are we willing to imprison in the process of keeping people like him behind bars?
All the while our education, healthcare and social safety nets are being dismantled. All the things that actually help reduce violent crime.
deleted by creator
Honestly, there are many people on Baltimore’s streets that shouldn’t be on the streets, yet they still are.
Edit: Im a Baltimore native, no idea why I’m getting downvoted for saying something that’s true.
They caught him on September 29th
If you do hanous shit like he did, he should have been put in prison for life. I am not for death sentence, thats fucked up.
You did a hanous crime, welp, your life is over. Rest of your shitty little life in prison.
*heinous.
Any system that classifies things has two types of errors: false positives and false negatives. As you increase one you decrease the other. It’s as simple as that. So if you want to be 100% sure you put every bad person in prison you just put everyone in prison. Anything short of that you’re going to miss some. How many innocent people being tortured or killed by the system does it take to equal the value of killing one guilty person or even keeping one guilty person in prison for the rest of their lives?
Stories like this primarily exist to justify massive amounts of violence by the state to ostensibly prevent things like this… except they never actually do. The criminal legal system is the only system that uses its own failure to perpetually justify additional investment. As long as you have prisons, you will have this. You will have people who go to prison and become more dangerous. You will have people falsely imprisoned and even murdered. You will have police murdering people regularly and getting away with it in the name of “preventing” crimes like this. All you need to do is look at the clearance rates for police and the recitivism rate for prisons to see that they just aren’t worth the investment.
Until we shift to a public health model of public safety, this is guaranteed. Public health approachs like investment in early childhood education, restorative justice systems, and making mental healthcare more accessible have been proven repeatedly to have multiple times higher return on investment than police or prisons.
While revenge feels good and feels intuitive based on the history of the legal system, it doesn’t fit with modern psychology. Classifier based punitive legal systems must always either cause suffering by action or inaction because that’s part of the fundamental definiton of classifiers and punitive systems. Making sure people like this are in prison means making sure innocent people are also in prison. Is it worth it?
deleted by creator
This is a perfect case to point out that criminal can kill you and just get put back in prison. Your family will now forever, never be the same and told to forgive them… what a joke
This type of criminal should be killed by the state to protect the civil part of society from a person like this.
Literaly just remove them from life.
Edit: Chad Doerman, decide for me on this case.
The problem with letting the state kill citizens is the shockingly high rate at which it will inevitably kill innocent people.
It should on be reserved for the worst of the worst. Not the people they are not sure of.
Innocent people are being killed by people who have not conscious of guilt don’t care about laws we follow. Kill you just the same.
Fix that fucking legal system and start a green revolution by deleting the worst criminls we have.
the people they are not sure of
lol you mean you put people in prison when you’re not sure they’re guilty over there?
“Yeah we’re not completely sure he murdered this woman so we’re not going to kill him, just put him in prison for 30 years in case he’s actually guilty.”
No,
Executions should be reserved for the worst of the worst and not the legally ambiguous
I don’t think “legally ambiguous” qualifies as “beyond a reasonable doubt” is my point.
Chad Doerman tell me what you decide.
At that point, you have to try to draw some kind of distinguishing, which will take quite a lot of time, money, and effort, just to create a punishment that is barely ever used and accomplishes no meaningful advantage over life imprisonment except some sort of rather perverse moral satisfaction.
In a perfect world, I’d agree that death for the most heinous case that have no legal ambiguity is essentially fine, but in reality, “not legally ambiguous” functionally does not exist, or at the least, it takes a lot of time and money to find it.
Yeah, a perfect world. I agree. I just feel that people who have killed just because they want to,the people that kill their whole family or 30 kids in a school can’t just sit their and live, it might not be the best type of life but its still something their victims don’t have.
Im mainly really only referring to cases like Chad Doerman. It is an execution case and its not the only one of its type.
Also I forgot to add. This guy in OP’s post is also a candidate for execution. A serial rapist with a long history of his crime now guilty of murdering a inoccent person. I mean what the fuck did she do to deserve that? he gets to keep on breathing? Fuck that! the system is broken and people suck.
The fact of the matter is that you either waste a huge amount of money and time in the process of rigorously defining that category of who deserves the death penalty, or you do literally anything else with those resources.
And frankly, I don’t think the biggest issue with the prison system right now is a small number of people who deserve death instead being alive, so there are plenty of other things that I’d rather invest in. For instance, the fact that security is so lax that being raped in prison is so common that people literally make casual jokes about it.
Simply put, this world where the justice system just knows who deserves to die and never makes any mistakes ever does not exist, whether you like that or not.
See you make it sound like its such a hard decisions. Rigorously define the death penalty? The fuck? You either meet the standard for execution or you don’t, see the case of Chad Doerman (my standard for the death penalty).
Yes the prison system needs updating but im not talking about prisons.
Not asking for that perfect world im asking for a world where a person that commits the most serious of crimes, no longer enjoy their life.
And I’m saying that what you’re wanting is a fairy tale and doesn’t actually exist (or at the very least, costs a stupid amount of money and resources that could be much better used by doing literally anything else).
I don’t think we’re gonna get much further here, so respectfully, I’m going to move on.
“We should kill people” - rational person
And if someone is falsely convicted of this sort of crime and executed, that person’s family too will never be the same. And it is not possible to create a system in which criminals are successfully prosecuted but where false convictions cannot happen
Yeah, it’s better to imprison an innocent for life than to kill them.
One is acceptable. The other isn’t.
If new evidence exonerates a living person, they can be released. You cant bring an innocent dead person back to life.
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean every innocent person in prison for life is going to get exonerated before they die.
The argument that “the death penalty should be abolished because some innocent people are convicted” doesn’t hold any water because innocent people can be convicted with life imprisonment as well and die before being found innocent. Does that mean we shouldn’t sentence people to life in prison?
Which brings me back to my previous point: it’s acceptable to imprison innocent people for life, but not to execute them. At least in your minds.
It is not acceptable to punish an innocent person at all in my mind, but it is also not acceptable to sit by and do nothing about dangerous and malicious behavior, and so it becomes necessary to choose the lesser evil.
Executions should only be reserved for the worst of the worst. The people who don’t care they murdered someone. A father that executes his 3 kids and is cool with that is a perfect example for it or a person who is a serial rapist who has now committed murder and NOT the legally ambiguous.
“We don’t quite know if you did that crime so it will be life instead of execution.”
“Oh you just wanted to kill 30 people because you hate your life, don’t worry the state will sort you out”
