Blog

Justice is an elusive concept, difficult to pin down with a precise definition. It is so much more than accountability for a wrong. It is also the collective need to serve the interests of right. But even these basic social notions get murky at times when right and wrong seem to conflict because there is as much right as wrong in some given life situations.

And that’s the troubling thing about two recent cases involving criminal justice—one in Missouri, the other in Louisiana.

The Missouri case involves the April 9, 2024 execution of Brian Dorsey who, admittedly, murdered his cousin and her husband in 2006 while addicted to drugs.

The Louisiana case involves the April 22, 2024 parole of Warren Harris, Jr. who, admittedly, murdered three homosexual men on different occasions in 1977 in New Orleans while addicted to drugs.

The difference in the two crimes:

Dorsey killed his cousin after she and her husband took him in their home to protect him from drug dealers. He robbed and killed them with their own shotgun to support a drug habit. He was 35 years of age. He suffered from drug addiction psychosis at the time.

Harris killed three men who took him to their residences for a paid-for-sex encounter by stabbing them to death. He said he “hated homosexuals” and killed and robbed them to support a drug habit. He was 16 years of age. He also suffered from drug addiction psychosis at the time.

Both Dorsey and Harris compiled impressive records of individual rehabilitation during their incarceration. In short, both men were not the same individuals at the time of their execution and parole as they were when they committed their crimes. This was acknowledged by both penal systems that incarcerated them.

Dorsey’s execution was endorsed by members of his victims’ families while no one from Harris’ victims’ families offered any opposition to his parole.

Dorsey’s execution was advocated by the Attorney General of Missouri while the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office did not express any position on Harris’ parole efforts.

So were these the reasons why an admitted double murderer was executed and an admitted triple murderer was paroled?

Dorsey’s victims said “justice was served” by his execution while Harris’ supporters said “justice was served” by his parole.

Was it?

That’s the dilemma in both cases.

One thing is certain. Louisiana’s new governor, Jeff Landry, was elected on the promise that he would restore the state’s death penalty to an active status. He will have to deal with that dilemma in determining who and how many people on death row must die. There are dozens of inmates on Louisiana’s death row that have credible evidence of innocence or compelling mitigating evidence about how and why their crimes occurred.

The Dorsey/Harris cases inevitably raise this question:

Is it “justice” to execute or keep people forever incarcerated that have victim opposition while sparing or freeing others similarly situated that do not have victim opposition?

If so, that sort of seems like modernized lynch justice to me.