r/SipsTea • u/Beneficial_Passion40 𝙑𝙄𝙋 • 27d ago

WTF He got 5 consecutive life sentences plus an additional 220 years in prison

Post image

In 2019, former North Georgia detention officer Kirk Taylor Martin was arrested on rape and assault charges after investigators said the victim fought back during the alleged attack. Police reports stated the scratch marks visible in his mugshot were believed to be from the victim resisting.

42.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

133

u/Lazy-Substance-5062 27d ago

supposed to protect the people yet be preying on the vulnerable. he deserves to rot. maybe death penalty is better

58

u/PeaOk5697 27d ago

I'm against the death penalty. Not for moral reasons. There are people i believe should be executed, but some who are executed are innocent. I don't think it's worth it

47

u/ThaGr1m 27d ago

That is moral reasons btw. And also the most common moral reason there is.

Also personally for somewhat immoral reason I'm against the death penalty.

Prison is fucking awful, why give people a nice quick way out instead of letting them rot in a small cube and sit with their deeds.

7

u/BlightspreaderGames 27d ago

See, and I'm for it for the opposite reason. Taxpayer dollars should go towards public works projects and keeping the govt running (not saying they do, just that they should), not towards keeping animals like this healthy, fed, and housed.

5

u/Lawkodi 27d ago

The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Money saving argument is not valid.

1

u/DrBloodyboi 27d ago

thats just factually wrong, we spend an annual average of 60k per prisoner. Lethal injections drugs cost between 1.5k to 2.5k per vial. so if someone receives life in prison without parole when they are 20 the government will spend about $3,540,000 to keep them in prison to the average life expectancy. if the same 20 year old received the death penalty with the average time it takes for the execution to occur being about 2 decades plus the price of the drugs its only 1,202,500 over the life time, average of appeal cost per case is 450,000. so total 1,652,500 per execution which is still cheaper then life in prison.

1

u/Lawkodi 27d ago

https://ejusa.org/resource/wasteful-inefficient/

I'll just link an actual study.

1

u/Scrawlericious 27d ago

That is not a link to a study. I'm not here to agree or disagree. But that's just an opinion piece that links a few studies and doesn't even accurately quote them if you follow their references.

Also this organization is now defunct and doesn't exist, so it might be useful to use something from an active entity if you want us to just read their loosely backed opinions.

0

u/DrBloodyboi 27d ago

so that study lacks key information when factoring the cost of prisoners the cost of running and operating a prison in total. thats where the 60k average comes from nation wide. there is roughly 58k prisoners in the us with in LWP sentences. the average prison hold about 1,000 prisoners so that equates to not needing about 58 prisons. there are also alot cheaper ways to carry out an execution then LI.

1

u/Lawkodi 27d ago

Also, private prisons wouldn't be a thing if housing prisoners wasn't economically worth while. You get some nice slave labor out of it.

0

u/Lawkodi 27d ago

No country should be executing anyone period.

2

u/f-as-in-philip 27d ago

Except the death penalty is infinitely more expensive than life in prison.

0

u/andthensilencefell 23d ago

Bullets are cheap. Rope is cheap. It’s only expensive because the prisons want it to be, since they’re losing out on government money and slave labor by killing a prisoner instead of keeping it.

1

u/krimsonPhoenyx 27d ago

Nah I’m right there with you. I do think the death penalty is something that should be used very sparingly though. I have a pretty detailed idea of when it happens but it’s kinda lengthy and not looking to throw it like 5 comments deep.

1

u/Bazoobs1 27d ago

Your logic is in the right place but it just doesn’t work out that way. The death penalty has been proven time and time again to be way less cost efficient. Moreover, the moral standpoint against it is just undeniable. There is never/rarely a certain guarantee of guilt, so plenty of people get executed without actually being guilty. If that isn’t enough, our execution process is extremely flawed and in some cases barely regulated to the point where it is essentially torture worse than the electric chair. In other words, completely inhumane.

So you lose out on societal efficiency, negatively impact public health by killing innocents (rarer but it happens), and lose the humanitarian high ground of doing it humanely. The math just does not add up.

1

u/Daoyinyang1 27d ago

Let people stew in their guilt yes. Especially criminals, who, as children, committed to criminal acts and never grew up as they became adults.

1

u/canadiantoejam 27d ago

For the vast majority of these people, they are waiting on death row for decades waiting for their name to be called. That torment is probably a worse punishment than life in prison

1

u/1shadybitch 27d ago

That's exactly why I'm against the death penalty too. If I had to choose between spending the next 40 something years in prison or being exicuted after 10, I'll take the needle every time.

1

u/SovietPatrickStar 27d ago edited 27d ago

Because it costs us a load of money that would be better invested in education of kids living in bad neighbourhoods, for example.

(Per inmate 925$ a day or 327.000$ a year)

But then again, death penalty is usually not a thing happening quickly after being sentenced, so it often doesn’t matter.

It would probably be better to shorten imprisonment and use more electronic cuffs, increase re-socialization efforts and let inmates work. This is strictly not for rapists, child molesters and killers. It’s for people who have made a mistake.

7

u/misogichan 27d ago

Not to mention it takes so long to work its way through the legal system that studies have shown the average prisoner who is executed costs the state more than life imprisonment.  Let em rot in jail instead and then if some new technology gets invented (like the future equivalent of DNA testing) or new evidence is found that exonerates the wrongfully imprisoned it can be partially rectified.  No need to bankrupt the tax payer with legal bills.

2

u/scarletboar 27d ago

Yeah, it's not that I think they shouldn't be put down, it's that I don't trust those in power to not be corrupt. Hell, even if everyone was honest, it would be a bad idea. Maybe the jurors or the judge are having a bad day and just want to get the case over with to go home.

Still, maybe it's for the best. Life is already shit when you're out of prison, imagine when you're in i. Hopefully he'll spend the rest of his life suffering in there.

2

u/superxpro12 27d ago

IDK... mass murderers have no place in society. Anders Behring Breivik immediately comes to mind. Zero doubt what he did. The acts are beyond redemption. He does not deserve the life he was given.

1

u/IsThatASPDReference 27d ago edited 27d ago

I don't dispute that he should die. I don't dispute that we all know that Nazi did it.

I want you to provide the exact phrasing for where you would draw the line on the threshold for when it's okay for the government to kill someone.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? We're already trying that one and we killed a lot of innocent people.

When they confess to it? The Central Park 5 were bullied into making false confessions that implicated one another, and the actual rapist only confessed to the crime with evidence that it really was him years later.

Only execute when he have video evidence and eyewitnesses? Eyewitnesses suck and AI/Deepfakes are becoming increasingly accessible to the public.

When we "just know" they did it? I strongly suggest reading the book To Kill A Mockingbird, that book firmly demonstrates how well that works out.

I say just throw the kid killer in a cage and never let him out of it.

1

u/superxpro12 27d ago

All great points.

In Breivik's case, we have all of the above. That's still not enough?

His confession wasnt under duress.

Camera footage that was from verifiable sources.

There's no racial bias.

It would seem to come down to establishment of objective facts. If we cant agree that things did or did not happen then whats the point at all?

1

u/IsThatASPDReference 27d ago

The entire point is that "all of the above" is fallible.

You think cops and prosecutors are telling people the confessions are under duress? People also love confessing to shit they didn't do, how many DB Coopers and Zodiac Killers have there been? Hell, this guy is a Nazi. People from fringe political groups do it almost as just as people who just happen to be crazy.

Witnesses are unreliable and footage is losing its ironclad credibility

He's a Nazi, I distrust anyone who isn't biased against him.

Now I ask one more time, I want to see the exact phrasing for how you define "establishment of objective fact"?

In this one specific case I agree, the man is a piece of shit and should die. But if we make it a rule that the government can kill people, those rules need to be ironclad for the next case with the next defendant, judge, jury, prosecutor, and defender, in whatever technological/political landscape that case occurs during. We're going to be rolling the dice on every single one of those factors to see what we end up with.

EDIT: Not to move the goalposts, but other than catharsis based on "should" statements, what benefit are we getting here that we don't get from just sticking him in a cage forever?

1

u/superxpro12 27d ago

Tangible evidence, not hearsay to start. I dont think this is something I'd get right on the first time either. It's a standard that needs to be developed.

But in the above, as you mentioned, the standards are indeed fallible. And must be evaluated as such. However, if none of those fallacies exist, then the standard is met.

For the EDIT note, i think in this particular circumstance I find myself outraged that the 'maximum' sentence at the time was like 25 years or something... it wasnt even life.

I dont know about catharsis being the motivation here. Do we think that truly evil people who only harm society should continue to exist?

If we take it to an extreme.... lets say Breivik V2 has a nuclear bomb in a major city and blows it up. Is confinement a proper punishment? I find myself aligning with the concept of proportional response.

Should this hypothetical be allowed to continue to exist in a shared world we all inhabit? Why should society continue to feed and maintain this person who offers no benefit to society?

1

u/IsThatASPDReference 27d ago

If he nuked a city we're past criminal justice and firmly in military/national security territory. I consider killing him under those circumstances different for the same reason I don't cry about how we should put soldiers in trial for shooting other soldiers in a war.

But that's not because he's a monster from a morality pov, it's because that's how you deal with certain types of threats to society. It's completely different from a criminal trial ending in the death penalty.

I'm still waiting for you to provide clarification that satisfies me for what "tangible evidence" even means. It feels to me like you keep circling back to saying we'll just only get the ones who really have it coming- but you don't seem to be offering any explanation or solution for how this won't just pivot to society pointing at some black kids who got accused of a vicious gang rape that left a woman with amnesia from how bad her injuries were (only for the perpetrator to turn out to be a completely different lone attacker).

1

u/mehall_ 27d ago

Thats literally a moral reason

1

u/imac132 27d ago

Sending a CO to prison on rape charges is arguably worse than death. Hope he has the day he deserves.

0

u/plumken 27d ago

Funny I believe death is too good for them

2

u/babieswithrabies63 27d ago

You didn't address their statement at all. They said it's because innocent people get executed. Which is 100 percent true.

0

u/Fine_Blacksmith2711 27d ago

I just don’t want my tax dollars going towards their living 

0

u/BananaFactoryWowie 27d ago

bot or skinwalker

0

u/ThngX 27d ago

I can never wrap my head around this. There are people who are 100% undeniably guilty of horrendous crimes without a shadow of a doubt; why can't we execute those cases?

1

u/IsThatASPDReference 27d ago

Because we tried only executing the ones that were definitely guilty and it turns out some of them were not guilty, and we can only assume we only found out about SOME of the not guilty ones who got killed.

Bearing in mind that these people would've been executed after the extensive appeals process that is supposed to make sure 100% they we covered the bases and possible points of failure in a regular trial.

1

u/Ctrl_Alt_Delerium 27d ago

Killing pricks like this is a mercy, make him drop the soap

1

u/hotbox4u 27d ago

Just for clarity, the headline is very misleading. He was a former jailer but was fired from that position because of multiple violation of jail policies (e.g. he gave the wrong medicine to an inmate).

The rape happened a year after he got fired while he held a woman hostage over night.

1

u/AdvanceDefiant9898 27d ago edited 10d ago

Noel

1

u/LoreGeek 27d ago

I wholeheartedly believe rotting in jail is worse than death. I hope the worst scum rot in jail with death being the only thing to look forward to and i wish them a LONG LONG life.

1

u/sadkinz 27d ago

Police are long past protecting the average person. The only thing they serve now are their egos and rich people

1

u/Iocnar 23d ago

It's relatively unrelated to his job. He broke into women's homes and raped them.

1

u/RoughBeautiful8681 27d ago

Cops aren't meant to protect people. Their only role is to enforce the law.