Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Death penalty upheld

Supreme Court ruling sets new direction

June 27, 2006

Advertisement

A Monday ruling making it easier for Kansas jurors to impose the death penalty may be the first sign that the Supreme Court's two new justices will tip the balance away from tighter restrictions on capital punishment.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito provided the pivotal votes in the Kansas decision. The decision supported a lower-court ruling that said when jurors believe the reasons for and against execution are equal, they must impose a death sentence.

It's a blow to death-penalty critics, who've said that the Constitution requires the reasons for execution to outweigh reasons against a death sentence. Previous rulings seemed to support that thinking, and the court's most recent rulings on significant death penalty issues - raising standards for defense attorneys, outlawing executions of juveniles and the mentally retarded - had raised expectations that the Kansas case would extend that line.

Warden David McKune leads a media tour of the execution chamber at Lansing Correctional Facility, where lethal injections will be administered to a person being executed by an IV team located in another room. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the state's death penalty law, under which eight inmates have been sentenced.

Warden David McKune leads a media tour of the execution chamber at Lansing Correctional Facility, where lethal injections will be administered to a person being executed by an IV team located in another room. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the state's death penalty law, under which eight inmates have been sentenced.

Roberts' vote didn't shift the court's balance on death-penalty law. He replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who wasn't in the majority for most of the court's significant death-penalty rulings.

But Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose doubts about capital punishment had grown in recent years. Alito's vote in the Kansas case was presumed to be decisive, because the court was split 4-4 on death-penalty law.

Shape of things to come

Monday's ruling affects only Kansas, but it suggests how the new court may split on larger capital punishment questions.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been on the losing side of significant death cases for years, joined the winners Monday. He penned a concurring opinion doubting that there are any institutional problems with the death penalty and rejecting the idea that innocent people have been or are at risk of being executed.

Justice David Souter wrote an equally sweeping dissent. He defined the court's obligation in death cases as seeking a "morally justifiable" sentence. He tied that term to the growing anti-death-penalty campaign that focuses on questions of possible innocence.

Souter cited a bevy of studies suggesting that the nation's prisons may be teeming with condemned prisoners who didn't commit their crimes.

"We are ... in a period of new empirical argument about how 'death is different,"' Souter wrote. Problems in states such as Illinois, which recently commuted the sentences of all its death-row inmates, and studies on incidences of DNA-related exonerations present new challenges and demand tighter scrutiny of capital punishment, Souter wrote.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, joins Chief Justice John Roberts outside the U.S. Supreme Court in this Feb. 16 file photo. Roberts and Alito provided the pivotal votes in Monday's decision upholding the death penalty in Kansas.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, joins Chief Justice John Roberts outside the U.S. Supreme Court in this Feb. 16 file photo. Roberts and Alito provided the pivotal votes in Monday's decision upholding the death penalty in Kansas.

Souter's opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, gives a hint of ideological and political sweep to their coalition's work to tighten restrictions on capital punishment. It suggests that, for them, this isn't just about the law and the Constitution, but also about the death penalty's practical effects - a doctrine that's frequently and brutally criticized by judicial conservatives.

Scalia response

Scalia took aim at Souter's attempt to root his objections in the possibility that innocent convicts are plentiful. He accused Souter and the others of irresponsibly fanning worldwide criticism of capital punishment in America.

"There exists in some parts of the world sanctimonious criticism of America's death penalty as somehow unworthy of a civilized society," Scalia wrote. Because Souter's opinion would no doubt be trumpeted by those critics, Scalia said, he was moved to respond. Souter's opinion, he wrote, has "nothing substantial to support it."

Scalia said there's never been a case where it's clear that an innocent person was executed. He punched holes in several often-cited studies of innocence problems, accusing Souter and the other dissenting justices of accepting "anybody's say-so."

Souter's opinion, Scalia wrote, "merely parrots articles or reports that support its attack on the American criminal justice system."

How they voted

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy voted in favor of Kansas' death penalty, while Justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted that it was not constitutional.

It's not the court's business to "impugn" jury verdicts that result in death sentences, much less to "frustrate" them by "imposing judicially invented obstacles," Scalia maintained.

Scalia's concurrence wasn't joined by other justices, but its tone was quickly echoed by interest groups that have opposed court rulings restricting capital punishment.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a prominent victims' advocacy group, said through its legal director, Kent Scheidegger, that the ruling showed a court majority was "not inclined to invent new procedural restrictions on the death penalty." Scheidegger said the court would probably continue to enforce restrictions already imposed.












Kansas defendants sentenced to die under the state's 1994 capital punishment law who still face possible execution:

¢ Douglas Belt: For the decapitation in June 2002 of Lucille Gallegos, in an abandoned apartment in a Wichita complex where she worked as a housekeeper. Also convicted of attempted rape and aggravated arson; prosecutors said he set fire to the apartment. ¢ Jonathan and Reginald Carr: For four shooting deaths in Wichita during a nine-day crime spree. A jury concluded they had entered a home and forced two women and three men inside to engage in sexual acts with each other and to withdraw money from ATMs. The women were repeatedly raped before the five friends were taken to the soccer field and shot. One victim survived. ¢ Phillip Cheatham: For the shooting of Annette Roberson in December 2003 at a Topeka duplex. Prosecutors say he opened fire on the duplex, also killing Gloria Jones. A third victim, Annetta Thomas, played dead and survived 19 gunshot wounds. ¢ Gary Kleypas: For the March 1996 killing of Carrie Williams, a Pittsburg State University student, after trying to rape her. The Kansas Supreme Court set aside his death sentence in 2001, and he has been awaiting resentencing in Crawford County. ¢ Michael Lee Marsh II: For the June 1996 deaths of Marry Ane Pusch, 21, and Marry Elizabeth Pusch, who was 19 months old. The mother was shot and stabbed, and her killer set fire to her home, trapping the toddler inside. The toddler later died. ¢ John E. Robinson Sr.: For the murders of two women whose bodies were found in barrels on property he owned in rural Linn County. Also sentenced to life in prison for a third, similar killing. Pleaded guilty in Missouri to five killings, receiving sentences of life without parole for each. ¢ Gavin Scott: For the September 1996 shooting deaths of Doug and Beth Brittain as they slept in their rural Goddard farmhouse. Also: ¢ Scott Cheever: Originally charged in state court with capital murder for the January 2005 shooting of Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels, at a home near Virgil where authorities also found a suspected methamphetamine lab. With the state's death penalty law under a cloud, the U.S. attorney's office agreed to prosecute the case and seek the death penalty in federal court, where the case is pending. ¢ Sidney Gleason: A Barton County jury recommended death for the shooting deaths of Miki Martinez and her boyfriend, Darren Wornkey, in February 2004. Prosecutors say Gleason worried that Martinez would tell police about the stabbing and robbery of a 76-year-old man. A judge must review the sentence. ¢ Gregory Moore: On trial in Harvey County for capital murder in the January 2005 shooting death of sheriff's Deputy Kurt Ford, during the storming of Moore's Hesston home during a domestic violence call. - Source: Attorney General's Office.







Capital crimes in Kansas, all of which must be premeditated:

¢ Murder of a kidnapping victim, if that person was being held for ransom. ¢ Killing of a kidnapping victim under 14, if that victim was being held because the criminal intended to commit a sex crime, such as rape. ¢ Murder for hire or participation in a murder-for-hire scheme. ¢ Killing of a victim of rape, criminal sodomy and aggravated criminal sodomy. ¢ Killing of a prison or jail employee or inmate by a prison or jail inmate. ¢ Murder of a law enforcement officer. ¢ Two or more killings at once, or killings "connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme."

Comments

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

Unfortunately, I think they DO know what they do. They are deliberately killing people for revenge. They may call it justice, but it's simply revenge. And it makes them no better than the murderer.

I think Jesus was referring to the fact that his executioners didn't know who he was, not that they didn't know what they were doing. They knew perfectly well that they were putting a man to death.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

It isn't a deterrent and never will be but it make those who support death feel justified to say it is a deterrent. Like I said before nothing is gained, we simoly have another murder to accept in the end. Cleche as the quote is " they know not what they do"

0

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

Lots of countries in the middle ages (and some still do now) used to chop off the hand of a person caught stealing. Did it stop people from stealing? No.

In some countries, infidelity is a reason for the death penalty. Has it stopped people from cheating? No.

People can spend years and years in prison for selling drugs. Has it stopped the selling of drugs? No.

Embezzling money can result in years in prison. Has it stopped people from embezzling money? No.

There is absolutely no punishment for any crime, now and throughout history, that has ever been enough of a deterrent for that particular crime to cease to exist. Not even death. And in the olden days, people WERE often executed just as soon as they were found guilty. It still didn't stop the crimes.

So why are all of you so convinced that the death penalty is such a deterrent for murder? It isn't. If it worked so great as a deterrent, then why are murders still committed?

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Indeed and he loves them all, even you cman, at least thats what my Bible says( King James Version)

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 9 months ago

I'm glad I never have to meet some of the lollipops who post on this site. Parkay - you are "special."

It's amusing to imagine what some of the old stomp-down convicts I was locked up with in the mid-70's would think of some of you guys. "Think of you" is probably the least graphic response to your crap.

This is the deal: lots of people are dead who should still be alive. Lots of people alive would be better off dead, if not for themselves, for everybody else.

The trick is figuring out who is who. You can't bring back the dead; just try as hard as you can to keep the good ones alive. And you can't kill all the pukes.

You'll have to think about it as best you can.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 9 months ago

Fishcat -

Since 1973, more than 10% of the people sentenced to die have later been found innocent. If we already know that we are wrongly convicting that many people, it sounds to me like we need MORE appeals, so we can see how many others on death row were the victims of poor investigations, coerced/forced confessions, police scurrying to find a suspect to blame to quiet the community, shoddy defense, biased juries, etc.

Yesterday, I posted on here a list of the countries of the world that are still practicing capital punishment. If the death penalty truly IS an effective deterrent, it's interesting that a lot of the countries that we regard as being extremely crime-ridden and dangerous are on the list, where most of the countries with very low crime rates are mysteriously absent. It doesn't add up.

If you don't want your tax dollars to support fair trials, adequate representation the poor, and yes, appeals, there are a fair number of countries in the world that still practice lynching. You most likely won't find living there to be such a tax burden.

0

Baille 7 years, 9 months ago

It only would work as a deterrent if murders were rational at the time they committed murder. Empirical evidence does not support that proposition.

0

Jim Fisher 7 years, 9 months ago

The death penalty is supposed to be an effective deterrent to crimes of the most heinous type. It will not work that way until the death chamber is ajacent to the courtroom, to which the convicted can be wheeled, and the sentence carried out. No appeals, no three squares for years, etc.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

blah blah blah a person who murders people for the fun of it really does not need you to stand up for them. They do not deserve anything from anybody. Compassion to let them live is misplaced.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

I have never really commited crime, but say bonnie and clyde, there was some apperent kind of rush that came from it for them. I never killed but I held a gun and there was clear physical changes, maybe it was knowing the power of it, but my heart rate increased, palms sweaty, that sort of thing. The mind creates all kinds of reaction, like sex part physical part emotional, do you know what I mean?

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

I don't know, you'll have to ask Xenophon.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

I ment what was the physical reaction? because I was thinking perhaps there is a release of sorts. I was thinking when one is filled with surpressed rage ( such as a murderer might be) that perhaps the act itself is somehow a way to free them.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by enforcer (anonymous) on June 27, 2006 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad you popped in, I was wondering since you are a military man and served in active duty. When you kill someone, what does it feel like? The reason I ask is does a release of sorts happen? Do you feel it in your gut? Does your skin crawl? what? ++++++++++++++

A sniper was recently asked that question by a reporter.

The reporter asked, "when you squeeze the trigger and you know your shot is going to kill someone, what do you feel?"

The sniper replied, "recoil"

They are the enemy, they are attempting to kill some of the most important people in your life, your soldiers. If the enemy is not killed then they WILL kill my soldiers. I feel satisfaction in a job well done, my soldiers are safe for another day. There is no release, no pleasure, no displeasue, merely efficient survival.

We were looking for some arab mujahdeen in Bosnia immediately after the cease fire in Feb 1996. They had up to 10,000 foriegn fighters on the muslim side. Our patrols pushed them out (a company of about 90) of a village and toward the Serbs. We knew they'd get ambushed and that the zone of separation was mined. While clearing the village we found the serb women, raped and killed. We found the serb children, bound and shot in the back of the head. They didn't need to bound the infants, those were just shot. The next day we found the Arabs, the serbs had killed their company, about 90 men. The press reported the "Massacre of the Arab Fighters" and mentioned nothing of their autrocities. When we cleared that village and pushed the mujahdeen toward the ZOS we knew they'd be captured. That was the only time I felt anything about a death. Felt satisfied that justice was served.

Combat is about keeping your soldiers alive, killing the enemy so they stop trying to kill you. When bullets are striking around you and shells are exploding, the thought of whether or not killing the enemy is justified goes out the window, it's survival. If they are shooting at you they must be stopped.

0

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

Capital punishment is one of our God-given rights?? What a twisted sense of logic. I'm sure that God doesn't want us killing anyone. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Not to become bloodthirsty savages in some misguided search for "justice". And in the old testament is "vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord".

My mother always taught me that if, in retaliation, you do the same thing that was done against you, then you are no better than the scum who did it to you in the first place.

The thousands of murdered victims are the only ones who truly know who did it. And they may just be crying out that you have the wrong person. They may be crying because their loved ones that were left behind, that they thought they knew so well, have become twisted shells of anger that they would no longer even recognize.

Far too many times the police and prosecutors focus on one person, and don't even bother investigating further to see if anyone else could be to blame. Once they make their minds up, even if they find evidence that doesn't support their theories, they will ignore it. Some evidence never even makes it to the jury.

If I am ever murdered by anyone, I for one would NOT want my murderer to be executed. And I have told all of my family this as well. If they go on some witchhunt for supposed justice, they wouldn't be doing it on my behalf.

I have read about people gathering outside a prison before an execution, and there's a party atmosphere there. When it's announced that the criminal has been executed, these nut jobs cheer.

I don't care who they are or what they have done. Anyone who can cheer at the death of another human being is sick and twisted. If you can get pleasure from the death of another, then you aren't any better than the person who was executed.

Only cold-blooded murderers get pleasure from the pain and death of others. Or so many pro-death penalty people have stated here.

0

dizzy_from_your_spin 7 years, 9 months ago

For those fearful of executing an innocent person, of the eight people on death row, which ones are innocent?

0

TJ_in_Lawrence 7 years, 9 months ago

The blood of the thousands of murdered, raped and molested victims cries out for justice. Sometimes death is the right choice.

0

Ray Parker 7 years, 9 months ago

Capital punishment is one of our God-given rights, and we will not stand for any handful of leftist, activist judges taking it from us. We need not impose it upon every convicted killer, but some will have to pay the ultimate penalty for threatening our society, because someone keeps turning dangerous, violent, heinous murderers loose on us. The pain and suffering and loss of life they inflict upon the innocent in our communities is unbearable, beyond a reasonable doubt.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

I'm glad you popped in, I was wondering since you are a military man and served in active duty. When you kill someone, what does it feel like? The reason I ask is does a release of sorts happen? Do you feel it in your gut? Does your skin crawl? what?

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by enforcer (anonymous) on June 27, 2006 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

on lethal injection

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/06/1...

"At one point, Clark asked the team if they could give him something by mouth to kill him."

==============\

How about giving Clark a handgrenade suppository.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

another one bites the dust gone gone gone

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

I remember now it was once a judge gives instructions to a jury they no longer are able to determine guilt or innocence based on facts of case alone.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Let's get real is there such a thing as a biased jury? I read something about jurys and how the are all stacked, which makes sense. the process alone is skewed. they call in more than they need. and ask questions to eliminate, the defense needs open minded people but is limited to what they can pull, of course the pulling alternates and the prosecutor wants the angry people that will convict. I'm not sure the process is fair in that there is never a fully unbiased group to draw from. like the Carr case, now please who didn't hear something about it? So the prosecutor will ask well even though you have heard about it can you still be unbiased? How can that be?

0

bthom37 7 years, 9 months ago

The death penalty is a bad idea because there's no taking it back. If an innocent man is executed, there's no 'oops, our mistake, we'll let you out of prison'. Any human system of justice will be imperfect; therefore no one can be absolutely sure that only the guilty will be executed.

You can't make it so that it only applies to the 'obviously' guilty, because who can decide who the 'obviously' guilty are? Who decides who's 'obviously' guilty and who's almost-obviously guilty?

To reiterate, no man-made system of justice will be perfect, so we should never allow a man-made system of justice to make an irreversible decision.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 9 months ago

hey I was just saying what I got out of the post no need to attack.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 9 months ago

Jury selections are carried out by the attorneys involved. So, if you have a hand-picked attorney that you've paid thousands of dollars, chances are you're going to end up with a completely different jury than if you are forced to take the state-appointed attorney that doesn't personally care how the case ends up. You WANT a well-balanced, open-minded, un-biased, non-racist jury if you need a fair trial, but getting that depends largely upon the skill of your attorney, and thereby, like it or not, how much money you have.

You're basically saying that if you stand in front of a jury and tell them to "weigh your decision real good," it's all of a sudden going to cancel out the effects of poor representation.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

boo hoo cry me a river. the murder has died

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 9 months ago

heartwarming I am sure but what was he like out side

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Here I go with another story

I was about 15 years old and my Father was very ill ( he died by the time I was 17) during one of his hospital stays he shared a room with an inmate from Death Row. ( at this point in time Nebraska had not executed since Charles Starkwether, 1959) They had gaurds in the room and the hall. His name was willie he had been in prison for some time and in fact upon arrrival a spot had shown on x-ray in his lung. The prison ignored this, consequently years later he had developed debilitating cancer. The man caould not even get up and walk yet the had him in full shackles which were attached to the bed and he was gaurded 24/7. He had visitors associated with some human rights group ( perhaps the ACLU, but I was unawre of them at that time). I guess I should add that my Father was not the kindest person. In any case My Father liked Willie, which was strange to me. But over the weeks of visiting I wondered why everyone didn't like Willie, he was a very laid back guy and quite funny despite being so weak that he on some days could barely lift his head. He was very thin; a shell of a man really. I don't recall how many people he killed, but it was several. Even now I find it hard to imagine him as a killer. He told me wonderful stories about his life and he smiled often. Well ,willie died and it was a very sad day, it was the only time in my entire life I saw my Father cry. I cried too, as did the nurses on the floor and anyone else who's life he touched. I suppose it comes down to just this, There is good in the worst of people and bad in the best of people. I chose to believe no one is inherently evil, but I do believe that what we experience in life factors in. Anger and violence just doesn't come from no where, we are all born pure and new, somebody and/or something has to put it there. Those are just my thoughts............

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 9 months ago

well what read into that post was that the jury should weigh its desion real good before giving a death sentence but I could be wrong.

0

moderator 7 years, 9 months ago

Life in prison is a far worse punishment than the sweet escape of lethal injection. Life in prison is half as expensive as the death penalty.

Death penalty does not deter crime

Death penalty is economically unsound

Death penalty is morally unsound

The Justice System has never claimed to be perfect, why take someones life into your own hands (through your elected officials) through an imperfect system?

O.J. and Robert Blake are free men.

Also - Invariable the death penalty proponents are fundamentalist "christians" conservatives. I once asked the crazy preacher that perches and crows at wescoe on nice days what Jesus would have thought of the death penalty. His response (as a representative of all crazy FCCR's) He'd be all for it! I don't see any reason why not."

How about the fact that Jesus was given the death penalty?

0

RichardCory 7 years, 9 months ago

You get your case evaluated very very very well if you have the money to be able to pay an attorney to do so. Most of the people on death row did not have this asset, and so were defended by whatever person the state decided to assign them. Not many people want this job, and the state obviously isn't going to pay great rates for the defense of someone the voters heard on TV might have committed a crime. Now let's think about how great of a defense these people are going to get.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 9 months ago

I just think it is funny that all the people in here are such experts on this issue. When have anyone in hear been in prison, not jail, and been on death row or in fact injected? What makes all of us in hear experts? Not a damn thing. This is why all the web addresses.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

It's a flower garden on Death Row By Bruce C. Jacobs # 000876

A stolen seed, lonely, planted in the blackest of dirt, With no hope to grow, surrounded by weeds and crab-grass, To choke off any signs of life, Faced with nothing but bleak cold days every day, With only a few glimpses of sunshine to give some strength, The seed struggles to become. But along comes a Li'l rain to shower down the seed. Determination sets in. On the brink of death, it refuses to wither away and die. So it drinks a drink called life. The other seeds have given up hope. They refuse to taste the true giver of freedom, They'd rather be eaten by crows, Or choked by the thorny bushes, Instead of planting some roots and thriving. Now this one small, lonely seed has become, The most breathtaking flower to behold. It's beauty is beyond compare, .I:ll because it hungered to be alive, To give pleasure with its fragrance, And to add beauty and color to the world. But only the most careful observer, With a very keen eye can truly see, This beautiful, rare and lovely flower, because this garden is in a sewage dump called "Death Row" And the Flower is growing within the soil of my heart.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 9 months ago

Some very harsh people in here tonight.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

Make no mistake I will never change my mind on this issue. But I do think everycase should be evaluated very very very well before this sentence is handed down. As for the cases involving children wellllllll I would just add a few other things before the needle.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 9 months ago

If they're going to hell, they're going anyway - whether we inject them in front of a crowd, or make them die utterly alone in a cell after years of misery and solitude.

But if we retain the death penalty, we do get to stay in the company of some excellent countries. Following are the only countries of the world still practicing capital punishment, courtesy Amnesty International:

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

We're in great company, folks. And obviously, from the looks of it, capital punishment is doing an EXCELLENT job of creating a safe, healthy, productive environment for the children of these countries to grow up in. Or maybe the people in these countries (the US included) really are nastier naturally, and thereby need to be killed more than, say, the people of Sweden or Great Britian. Maybe if we kill more of our criminals, we can get the stability and happiness that Rwanda has.

Interesting how many of these countries we scoff at for their barbaric practices, or even persecute for how "horrible" their governments are (or perhaps we just want their natural resources - that's the same, right?) We are a nation of hateful, blood-thirsty individuals.

0

Baille 7 years, 9 months ago

"and some people should rot in hell."

I thought we left that decision up to God.

"If an adult molests a child and then kills the child or even if the child is not killed but the molester has harmed numerous children then do you believe it is ok to execute?"

No. It is never OK to kill someone in cold blood whether by state ritual or by vendetta.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

now why would someone oppose him? But that is right you believe in pain suffering and cruelty

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

What really blows my mind is the same people who support the death penalty are the ones who opposed this man.

All he ever did was fulfill the dying wishes of his patients.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

and some people should rot in hell.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 9 months ago

Personally, if you're really that disgusting of a human, I'd really rather you have to sit in a cell for the rest of your miserable, pointless life than have an easy out in 10 years, and a whole lot of public attention in the meantime. The posh prisons you see on TV aren't where these folks are going (those are filled with your execs that steal from the poor, and your politicians that murder thousands - only the thousands don't count, because they're brown people that speak funny languages) - life isn't fun, they're not wearing designer clothing and eating carryout from fancy restaurants. They're getting absolutely crappy medical care, enough food to sustain them, and trying their darnest not to get killed by their neighbors. A controlled death is the nicest thing we can do for a lot of these inmates.

If you'd like to learn more, here's a good site for starters: http://www.aclu.org/capital/index.html

Capital punishment was a great way of keeping killers off the streets in biblical times. (It was also a great way of keeping your wife from cheating on you again) We have technology (i.e. large metal cages) that makes it possible to keep these people from killing again, without making it necessary to kill them. And if your goal is to dissuade others from killing - guess what - capital punishment isn't going to work either. If you don't have a conscience to prevent you from butchering people, do you really think you're going to think, "hmmm, I bet if I kill this guy, it's going to make it rather complicated for me to attend my neice's eighth grade graduation in ten years, since I might be dead?" Probably not.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 9 months ago

"So we have to abandon "beyond a reasonable doubt" and make sure we're perfect. Most death penalty statutes come about as close to that as you can get now. Particularly in the sentencing phase. The option has to be available. The last thing I want to do is feed and clothe the Carr brothers for the next 50 years or more."

In the last 30 years, we've executed over 1,000 people. In this same amount of time, we've released 125 inmates from death row, after finding they were innocent. So, these individuals have been prosecuted, gone through the "fair trials" that our nation prides itself upon, been found guilty by their "peers," sentenced to die by their "peers" and the judges we admire for their fairness, and then after we take years away from them as they rot on death row, we find proof that at least 10% of the time, our system of determining guilt has completely failed. Pilgrim, I'm not saying we have to be perfect, but it seems to me that if you can prove that 10% of the time "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" actually means innocent, we have a problem. It's pretty difficult to fight a death sentence - so those 10% that did escape with their innocence probably had money or someone on the outide with a passion for seeing justice done at their own expense. How many of the 90% that are left just weren't able to be heard? And even if we're only killing 10% of these people wrongly - what rates are you willing to accept to get your revenge?

Killing people is expensive (as it should be, unless, as I've mentioned before, you'd prefer to revert to lynching - I hear there are no court costs involved - and their guilt is completely irrelevant). As pointed out above, we also often lose valuable information with these individuals. And yes, the guilty often are psychopaths, but wouldn't it be neat if we could actually study these people enough to be able to figure out exactly what is wrong and how to fix it? (Generally, it's pretty obvious from the time a child is tiny that their emotional responses aren't correct for the situations, but current science allows us to do absolutely nothing but sit back and wait for them to get large enough to cause enough damage that the law warrants us locking them up). And really, on a day-to-day basis, none of us really lose anything by these people being allowed to rot in their cells instead of being killed.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

Bundy enjoyed his kills plain and simple. Mcveigh was a sociopath with no remore alone or not he did the dirty deed. their is a whole list of them, these are not your every day variety killers they get off on it.

0

allmine 7 years, 9 months ago

if it is the case i remember hearing yes it was, own words and all but it could be a diffrent case. There have been more than a few of these lately. But to show up with a gun does lend to the premeditated issue, why else would you have it?

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

I just found this read it through and think about it

On My Block Glenn Cornwell Over inflated aspirations, with less the grammar school education, where life means less than money, and the Kingpen signify's success, on my block. Shoes are more important than books, and everybody packs heat, just looking for a come up or some dramma, on my block.

The child disrespects his mama, and looks up to the robber, on my block.

Police are hated, and never fail to hate back, while the thug is loved. The concern citizens house is burned to the ground for what he shouldn't have seen anyway. Gotta mind your own, on my block.

Infested with drugs, where chrome rims mean more than the baby's milk and every youngster wants to be either Michael Jordan or Scarface. How many Michael Jordans are there anyway?

Gladiator baseball and everybody old enough to vote already had three strikes before the law was passed, nobody votes anyway, on my block.

Everybody respects the dead, but nobody respects the living. Peace can be found, only if there's enough dope around, and it's checkday. In the dope fend's quest for the almighty high, he comes with the money, then he comes with the drag, then if all else fails, he comes with the strap, and wonders why the last thought he had, was lead, going through his head. Just another day, on my block.

Funny, my little brother wants to be just like me, a real "O.G.", on Death Row, and there's not much I can say cause it's just the way life is, on my block.

I guess I miss it more than life itself, but sometimes I wonder, when I think about my block, "was I ever alive in the first place?"


Glenn Cornwell D-08714 San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, California 94974

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by carlwhoishot (anonymous) on June 27, 2006 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction: So the premeditated slaying of someone in front of a police station while your mother looks on is not a capital crime?

Do you have a source to cite that says it was premeditated? I read much on this case and no where did I see a statement made that she thought about it and planned it. please supplyu supporting info.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by conservativeman (anonymous) on June 27, 2006 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If an adult molests a child and then kills the child or even if the child is not killed but the molester has harmed numerous children then do you believe it is ok to execute?

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/ (Jessica Lunsford)

the thing about pedophiles is there have been numerous studies done and many techniques to deter the deviance but there has never been an effective result. Casteration didn't work, intensive therapy doesn't work, they even tried electode conditioning; wherre in the show pictures of victims and when the perp is stimulated they are shocked, jez that works on dogs, livestock and almost every other creature but not a pedophile. I bvelieve they are in a catagory all their own. Given the chance they will always reoffend. Of course my oppinion on this is taited but yes killing pedophiles would not raise an argument from me.

0

carlwhoishot 7 years, 9 months ago

Correction: So the premeditated slaying of someone in front of a police station while your mother looks on is not a capital crime?

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by RichardCory (anonymous) on June 27, 2006 at 3:25 p.m.

Until we figure out how to ensure that the death penalty is ONLY used on people that are actually guilty, maybe we should back off.


So we have to abandon "beyond a reasonable doubt" and make sure we're perfect. Most death penalty statutes come about as close to that as you can get now. Particularly in the sentencing phase. The option has to be available. The last thing I want to do is feed and clothe the Carr brothers for the next 50 years or more.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

If an adult molests a child and then kills the child or even if the child is not killed but the molester has harmed numerous children then do you believe it is ok to execute?

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/ (Jessica Lunsford)

0

carlwhoishot 7 years, 9 months ago

Enforcer: "The women lived together and were in a relationship, they had domestic problems, that does not make capital murder. I suggest you find the documentary watch it and then comment, I think you may see it diffrently. The problem is the law tends to dismiss circumstances surrounding issues."

So the premeditated slaying of someone in front of a police station while your mother looks on is not capital punishment?

Nowhere in your response do you come anywhere near a coherent argument against the simple facts that I presented.

By the way, WTF does abortion or The Little House on the Prairie have to do with this issue?

0

Redzilla 7 years, 9 months ago

kingdork, agree with you. McVeigh was my turning point. My cousin and her 2-year old daughter died in the Murrah building (So "nyah" to those of you who claim that anyone who is against the death penalty must not know what it's like to lose a loved one to violent crime. I know.) The state snuffed out McVeigh without ever knowing who else was involved in that crime, and I don't believe it was just the two of them. Now that he's dead, we will never know what he knew. When you kill someone you lose the chance to learn how and why they committed their crimes. Knowledge is power.

0

Baille 7 years, 9 months ago

Those are facts, C-Man. Facts and conclusions. I am look for moral reasoning.

The "why" if you will.

If you want to play God - or at least abdicate the responsibility to the state - and decide that someone has had enough chance at redemption, then you should at lest be prepared to justify the position.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

You have my whole hearted support on molesters and pedophiles, but I would like to see their penis cut off and shoved down their throats first ( does that make me sick?)

But I really do think there is value in the study of the killer mind.

Look at Charles Manson, he makes sock puppets and acts out his thoughts through them. I saw a 4 part innterveiw on good morning america years ago that was really intresting. He looked at the interveiwer ( I think Diane Sawyer) and said " see this book, I could bash your head in with it" She looked like she might evacuate on herself, but the gaurd; just a few feet away never flinched. He is cray as bat crap but not stupid for sure and the gaurd knew that. Diane didn't because she didn't research enough ahead of time. more of that sensationalism you know. I would love to have the financial backing to do research on what makes a killer tick. I think it would do wonders in finding a solution to the problem. I haven't done much research on Tookie, but I suspect he and Charles are much the same in their minds.

Just a side note, I am really enjoying discussing this with you cman.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Come on now, if they repeatedly shoot, knife and incinerate their victim with the toddler left for dead and they confess that they lied in wait to commit such an act it is apparent they NEED the death penalty.

The BTK strangler ritualistically tortured his victims and taunted family members. He NEEDS the death penalty.

To keep these sub-humans alive is wrong. It is not a "knee jerk" reaction, it is a calculated decision to rid ourselves of an undesirable sociopath.

Ted Bundy is a better man now. As is Tookie. They EARNED their punishments. It wasn't a surprise to them, they knew that murder carries a death sentence.

Rapists and pedophiles should get capital punishment.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Another problem I see is once executed there is no one to challege if it was wrongful, most figure what is the point. I was thinking about the "kentucky fried chicken " guy, worked at IBM or something and went to KFC for lunch, later another black male enters robs and kills the clerk. The cops arrest the guy prosecute him and he spends years in jail before the real killer gets caught on another crime and confesses to the killing. So they release the wrongly convicted guy and say "good luck" to him. Well his career is ruined, his family and he stressed for years, but what the hell start over, no compensation, nothing. 60 minutes did an excellent piece on it. I'm sorry but what if they would have killed him and then the real killer confesses? that seems too lame to me.

I am ashamed of the Justice system in this Country and it sickens me to think about the miscarriages we know about much less the ones we don't know about.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 9 months ago

"With the ad nauseum appeals process we have now? Not enough thought? You're kidding, right? The death penalty is only more expensive than a life sentence BECAUSE of the appeals process. We need to apply some practical, common sense limitations on appeals, too."

Over 100 people released from death row since 1973 (READ - released - as in they were innocent, not just that the sentence was reduced). We're not talking about cases that were tried in 1850 and now we're thinking we made mistakes - these are current cases. Whether you want to admit it or not, mistakes ARE being made, and strangely enough, they are most often at the expense of young, poor, minority males. But we all find it so easy not to care if it only affects those that aren't quite like ourselves. Shall we make this easier, and only let the rich white people use the appeals process? (Might as well make it the law - this is already the case, since the poor often can't afford competent defense) Hell, why bog down the courts with minorities to begin with - let's just go back to lynching them on the streets - that'll save our tax dollars!

If we're wrongly condemned 100 people to die since 1973 (statistically that's supposed to be about 1 in 10 death row inmates - and keep in mind that these are only the ones that were discovered - assuming the execution has already occurred, the government is going to everything possible to keep the possibility of a mistake quiet, and those fighting to get the innocent off of death row aren't going to waste their time with a corpse), we've got a problem with our judicial system. Until we figure out how to ensure that the death penalty is ONLY used on people that are actually guilty, maybe we should back off.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

I think the last statements overall showed remorse for the acts ( although I did not read all of them, I will later)

I am not a religious person myself but have had my fair share beaten into me. I recall an episode of little house on the prarie where Micheal Landon tells Laura " evil the man most opposed to god calls for him in time of need"

0

GOPConservative 7 years, 9 months ago

It's too bad we don't have more Christians on the Supreme Court, and it is even worse that our Attorney General, Phill Kline, is so anti-Christian.

Killing people is not only against one of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, Jesus said in the New Testament,

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

Even if you are not a Christian, common sense and historical fact should tell you that very often innocent people are executed. The next time it happens, it might be YOU!

0

CheyenneWay 7 years, 9 months ago

Check out the Texas Death Row inmates last words. Some scream innocence but I guess you could argure the psychology of believing your own lies. Who knows? I know I'm not for the death penalty. I'd rather punish someone throughout their entire lives by throwing them in prison where everyday could be your last. Make the people suffer in solitary confinement for a few years to ripen that already weak psyche then throw them to the wolves in a completely backwards social habitat known as the prison system.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

additionally people tend to sensationalize as in the case of Ted Bundy or Bob Berdella. Norman Mailer made a killing himself with 'The executioners song', There was a guy promoting serial murder cards during the Jeffry Dahlmer era. The lifetime network has the market cornered on Docudramas. Not to say we don't learn much from these things, but in many ways it almost romanticizes the acts commited to the already troubled minds; hence copy cat killers. There is much to be learned by studing the mind of a killer and the circumstances that got them to the breaking point, how limited that resource when they are executed before all data can be obtained. Change can only come from understanding and if we don't allow for such reserch we are working in the problem as well.

0

Baille 7 years, 9 months ago

Due process does not equate to focused deliberation on whether capital punishment is moral.

The economic efficiency of capital punishment versus life imprisonment does not address the issues of deterrence, restitution, or the redemptive power of God.

The knee-jerk reaction is to advocate for death without articulating why such action is the morally correct or to justify ritual killing by the state with some more substantive than "eliminating sociopaths."

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Bundy was a good, if not spectacular, student at Woodrow Wilson High School, and was active in the local Methodist Church and the Boy Scouts. However, as he told Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth, authors of The Only Living Witness, he had no natural sense of how to get along with other people. "I didn't know what made people want to be friends," he told the authors. "I didn't know what made people attractive to one another. I didn't know what underlay social interactions." Bundy remained shy and introverted throughout most of his high school and early college years.

Bundy's criminal activities began at an early age, before he was even out of high school. He was a compulsive thief, a shoplifter, and on his way to becoming an amateur con man, and also claims to have indulged in voyeurism and window-peeping as a young teenager.

Bundy described the part of himself that, from a very young age, was fascinated by images of sex and violence, as "the entity," and kept it very well hidden. (It should be noted, however, that by the time Bundy was talking about "other selves" he was trying to appeal his death sentence.) Later, friends and acquaintances would remember a handsome, articulate young man. Bundy worked and campaigned for the Washington State Republican Party as an adult. He also worked as a volunteer at a Seattle suicide crisis center, alongside fledgling crime reporter Ann Rule who, ironically, wrote articles on the "Ted" murders that, unbeknownst to her, her young friend was committing. Years later, Rule would write a biography on Bundy, The Stranger Beside Me.

Bundy had one serious relationship with a college freshman whom Rule referred to by the pseudonym "Stephanie Brooks." She ended the relationship, fed up with what she described as Bundy's immaturity and lack of ambition, and they separated for a period of roughly two years. He eventually came back into her life, courted her once more, and then proposed, an offer she accepted. Two days later, he unceremoniously dumped her by ceasing to return her phone calls. It was shortly after this final breakup that Bundy began a homicidal rampage lasting three years.

Rule theorized that "Stephanie" formed the archetype for Bundy's preferred victim: young, white, female, with long dark hair parted in the middle.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Youth Bundy was born on November 24, 1946, in Burlington, Vermont. His mother, Eleanor Louise Cowell, was a young department store clerk. His father's identity has never been authoritatively established. For the first nine years of his life, Bundy and his mother lived with his maternal grandfather (who, according to some family members, was mentally unstable and prone to violence) in Philadelphia. To avoid the stigma of an illegitimate pregnancy, many neighbors and friends were told that Eleanor's parents had adopted Bundy, and that he was actually Eleanor's younger brother. According to some sources, Bundy may have believed his mother was actually his older sister throughout most of his childhood and adolescence. On at least three occasions during his early childhood, Bundy is alleged to have appeared at his aunt's bedside, smiling as he brandished several knives and laid them beside her on the bed.

Bundy and his mother eventually moved to Tacoma, Washington, where Eleanor's uncle Jack taught music at the University of Puget Sound. Not long thereafter, she married Johnny Culpepper Bundy, a hospital cook from North Carolina, whom she met at a church social function.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

ok let' look at Ted Bundy.

Just yesterday on another thread you spoke out about overbearing mothers and the effects they have on their kids, you said when you served in the military you saw men trying to get away from thei over controlling mothers.

It may intrest you to know Ted Bundy had such a mother and I don't think he was cut out for service, kind of a pretty boy you know, so what was his outlet. Murder. You need to keep in mind Social Services were not available with as much frequency to Ted's generation. The effects of that era are now surfacing via crime. even today good social worker intervention is difficult, butr if even one teacher or minister had noticed. I will not excuse him he for sure was nuts, but I think we need to look at how people become that way.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Knee jerk reaction? WTF?

It is a deliberate process to eliminate a sociopath that has proven by action against civil society that "it" can no longer function with us. The subhuman that has committed a crime so vile that capital punishment is applied has lost all right to life. It is not "knee jerk".

Ted Bundy got the chair! He deserved it!

0

erichaar 7 years, 9 months ago

Way to go Attorney General Phill Kline!

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Pooches good, still working on one, but hopeful. thanks for asking

0

kingdork44 7 years, 9 months ago

I used to be for the death penalty, but now I'm against it. I think my turning point was the Tim McVeigh case. I just don't think it was all him. This is playing the "God Role" and It's just not our judgement to make. Enforcer. How are the pooches.

0

hipper_than_hip 7 years, 9 months ago

When people act as animals, then they need to be treated like animals. You wouldn't hesitate to kill a dog who mauled a child to death, why would you hesitate to kill a human who abused and killed a woman or a child?

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by Baille (anonymous) on June 27, 2006 at 11:40 a.m.

Ritual killing by the state is both morally unjustifiable and practically worthless.

Too much knee-jerk, not enough thought.


With the ad nauseum appeals process we have now? Not enough thought? You're kidding, right? The death penalty is only more expensive than a life sentence BECAUSE of the appeals process. We need to apply some practical, common sense limitations on appeals, too.

0

billyflay 7 years, 9 months ago

let's not kill the duds, let's put them in prison for the rest of their lives to be tortured and abused and eventually die a horrible painful death by the hand of other duds,

just like what happened to dahmer,

i stand with liberals on this one.... the use of torture,

0

Baille 7 years, 9 months ago

Ritual killing by the state is both morally unjustifiable and practically worthless.

Too much knee-jerk, not enough thought.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Oh how I have miss your ever so elequent way of phrasing. I understand your point but as you know I rarely digress from my mission.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by enforcer (anonymous) on June 27, 2006 at 10:11 a.m.

PTSD for certain, mental illness should always be evaluated.


Then we'd better come up with some pretty practical, common sense standards upon which to make those judgments, because in today's psycho-babble world, just about any behavior can be deemed abnormal. It's part of the no-one-is-responsible-everybody-is-a-victim crapola that passes for empathy/sympathy these days. I'd be willing to bet there's some whacko shrink out there who will say loving your children is a mental illness.

Bottom line: Too many excuses, not enough responsibility. Don't advocate making it worse.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

So are you saying chain gangs, bread and water diets, sleeping with rats nibbleing digits would make you feel better about life rather than execution? Would it set your mind at ease to know more pain is being inflicted? Have you ever considered mental illness as a factor and do you somehow think a mental illness is more or less curable than say cancer?

Does this make your stomach churn and do tears not well in your eyes knowing this happened?

http://www.geocities.com/alabamajuveniles/stinney.html

0

newssleuth2814 7 years, 9 months ago

No matter what is decided to do to/with criminals, someone will not be happy.

While I support the death penalty, I wouldn't mind doing away with capital punishment if prisons weren't run like hotels. Criminals should be made to face a harsher environment and expect hard labor. I think the famous Arizona "tent prisons" started by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, would be a good starting method. They aren't overly cruel and shouldn't ruffle the feathers of too many anti death penalty advocates too much (see http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff).

As a taxpayer, I want to know that people like the Carr brothers are getting what they deserve in this lifetime. Whatever happens after they're put down isn't my concern.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

Abortion came up on the other thread late last night, I do not consider abortion an alternative for myself but I cannot force another to see that point, it is a personal choice and in fact the same Justices that approve the death penalty are the ones who say bortion is fine and let it continue. Now in keeping with justice and the fine system of pleas bargaining. I would be willing to consider changing my view on personal choice if they were to abolish the death penalty. any takers?

0

75x55 7 years, 9 months ago

"It is in fact hypocritical to kill because someone killed. You may not kill another but because you did we will kill you. Sane and logical minds behind that train of thought." -enforcer

Yes, sane and logical if you can tell the difference between murder and justice. When any unnatural intentional death becomes "killing", then those ideas don't make much sense anymore.

Which really makes me wonder how people could argue the 'hypocrisy' of the death penalty in this manner, yet argue that abortion is 'OK' [not saying you do, e., but there's probably a couple of 'em around].

Abortion supporters don't even have the argument of 'just punishment' on their side - quite the opposite. In a rational world, they would be the epitome of hypocrisy.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 9 months ago

to compare 1945 to 2006 is a streach. And yes I know bigots are still alive and well but not as bad as 1945.

0

GardenMomma 7 years, 9 months ago

Find an island that has a supply of fresh water and food that can be grown and put all death row inmates and life without parole inmates on it and let them fend for themselves. They'll either learn to cooperate and survive or kill each other. Either way, it's less of a burden on the taxpayers. Less crowding in the prisons too.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

The case was not premeditated, and no if you sit around for a days, week , months and plan to kill for the sake of killing that does not justify, but look at the case of Lena Baker

Lena Baker, the only woman ever executed in the Georgia electric chair (March 5, 1945), was posthumously pardoned on August 15, 2005. Baker had been convicted of the first-degree murder for killing E.B. Knight (a man with a broken leg whom she worked for as caretaker) by an all-white, all-male jury during a one-day trial. It was later determined that Baker clearly acted reasonably in self-defense against Knight who had not only sexually abused her but had also threatened her life with a branding iron after she told him that she was quitting her job as his personal caretaker.

JUSTICE FOR LENA BAKER http://www.workers.org/2005/us/lena-bake...

She was trapped in an abusive situation for years in a time when women did not leave. All she wanted was out. PTSD for certain, mental illness should always be evaluated.

0

lawrencechick 7 years, 9 months ago

The Carr brothers should have every single thing done to them that they did to their victims. That would be one public execution I would be happy to watch!

0

govols 7 years, 9 months ago

Staff04 - I couldn't agree more. If anyone's crimes were made for the death penalty, it is the Carr brothers.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 7 years, 9 months ago

"they had domestic problems, that does not make capital murder"

I'm confused. Are you saying that I can pre-meditate murdering my wife, but I'm somehow protected because we are in a domestic relationship?

Please explain.

0

Moira 7 years, 9 months ago

`From this day forward, I no longer will tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored -- indeed, I have struggled, along with a majority of this Court -- to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor... Rather than continue to coddle the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies. The basic question -- does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendentsdeserve' to die? -- cannot be answered in the affirmative... The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.''

-- Harry A.  Blackmun
0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

I am sure public spectales will make the right feel quite content, but the families of those executed should be considered as well. Gary Gilmores Mother isolated herself in shame because of the highly publicized execution. Gary was dead after the 5 shots hit him, his Mother lived through a diffrent sort of death long after. The Starkwethers of Nebraska still live with the stigma and most of them were not even alive when Charles and Caril Ann Fugate went on their killing spree. Public displays punish innocent people.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

I know the sole survivor of the Carr brothers' murders.

A close friend of mine was in the courtroom when she identified the men who shot her in the head and murdered her boyfriend and three other friends after demeaning them sexually by raping the women and forcing the men to engage in homosexual acts.

I think the death penalty is appropriate punishment for the crimes these men committed, but I am fearful that in other, not so clear cases, this court ruling may allow for the improper application of the death penalty.

0

hipper_than_hip 7 years, 9 months ago

If the death penalty is to be an effective deterrent to crime, then the executions should be carried live on television, similcast on radio, webcast on the internet, and pictures of the execution printed in the newspapers.

There is no deterrent to future killers when executions are carried out in private.

Only when the "faces of death" are put forth for everyone to see, will the deterrent have it's desired effect.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

The women lived together and were in a relationship, they had domestic problems, that does not make capital murder. I suggest you find the documentary watch it and then comment, I think you may see it diffrently. The problem is the law tends to dismiss circumstances surrounding issues.

0

carlwhoishot 7 years, 9 months ago

Enforcer: The lady you are talking about killed two people. In the first one she was tried and convicted of manslaughter and served her sentence. She met her second victim in prison, and when they both got out they remained friends. Long after an argument, she shot her. Not only did the victim identify her before she died, the shooter's mother was an eye witness. It is hard to have compassion for someone like that.

0

Moira 7 years, 9 months ago

Oldenuf:

I think we have a moral right to have a death penalty.... I can't see how we have a moral right to prove we are in control by using violence.

0

Kathy Gragg 7 years, 9 months ago

It is in fact hypocritical to kill because someone killed. You may not kill another but because you did we will kill you. Sane and logical minds behind that train of thought.

I watched documentary on this womans final hours and her Attorneys fight for a stay.

http://www.dpio.org/inmates/Allen,_Wanda.html

in the end they showed not only her family mourning but the victims family as well. A terrible tragedy indeed for all involved.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 7 years, 9 months ago

Why I'm not a fan of the death penalty:

1) Death is way too irreversable. Innocents WILL be killed, and there will be no way to undo it. 2) Most murder is not planned or premeditated. Some guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with the UPS man isn't going to stop his rage and say "WAIT! I'll get in trouble for killing them." The death penalty doesn't go very far to prevent crime. 3) It cost too much money. The legal fees are in excess of the cost of giving someone a life sentance.

I believe that we have a death penalty for one reason: to give ourselves the impression that we are doing as much as we can to prevent and punish. It helps us to feel more in control, but that is a falsehood. I think we have a moral right to have a death penalty, but I think it makes no sense to do it.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.