Virginia Executes Woman with IQ of 72

I duno guys, I can't honestly see the good behind a "we'll take a life to show that taking lives is wrong" system.

jugger0

bluewolf wrote: »

I duno guys, I can't honestly see the good behind a "we'll take a life to show that taking lives is wrong" system.

So you think its good to keep a killer or rapist in a small room for the rest of their life? or the fact that we have to pay to keep these things alive? People who cannot be reintroduced into society, dont see the point in dragging out their existence.

KaiserMc

She understood -2 = 200,000 plus ,she was the mastermind behind the killings,she unlocked the door, she locked the dog up , she recruited two male fools to do the dirty work...sounds like a deviously clever person to me, no harm in her being put on her way at all.

OutlawPete

Now my waitin's over,
And the final hour drags by,
I ain't about to tell you,
That I don't deserve to die

There's twenty-seven men here,
Mostly black, brown and poor,
Most of us are guilty,
But who are you to say for sure?

So when the preacher comes to get me,
And they shave off all my hair,
Could you take that long walk with me,
Knowing hell is waitin' there

Could you pull that switch yourself sir,
With a sure and steady hand,
Could you then still tell yourself sir,
That you're better than I am?

jugger0

OutlawPete wrote: »

Now my waitin's over,
And the final hour drags by,
I ain't about to tell you,
That I don't deserve to die

There's twenty-seven men here,
Mostly black, brown and poor,
Most of us are guilty,
But who are you to say for sure?

So when the preacher comes to get me,
And they shave off all my hair,
Could you take that long walk with me,
Knowing hell is waitin' there

Could you pull that switch yourself sir,
With a sure and steady hand,
Could you then still tell yourself sir,
That you're better than I am?

If they caught osama bin laden and he came out with that would you let him off so?

OutlawPete

jugger0 wrote: »

If they caught osama bin laden and he came out with that would you let him off so?

Yes and George Bush also.

However, who said anything about "letting him off"?

I just don't think Governments should murder their inmates as a from of punishment.

Mankyspuds

IQ of 72 bedamned, she knew the difference between right and wrong.

goose2005

Josef Fritzl locked people up in a tiny room for 25 years.

If the state locks people up in a tiny room for 25 years, does that make it as evil as Fritzl? Of course not.

OutlawPete

goose2005 wrote: »

If the state locks people up in a tiny room for 25 years, does that make it as evil as Fritzl?

Fritzl kidnapped a child and raped her for years.

If the Government were to that as a form of punishment, then yes they would be as bad as him.

old_aussie

Got what she deserved, murdering bitch.

Manic Moran

Yeah. Why bother with courts or trials or any of that nonsense. Waste of money.

I didn't say that they shouldn't happen. I said that there is no reason for them to take as long as they do.

Apropos of the thread, California's first execution since 2006 has just been given the go-ahead today. Albert Brown.

The victim was a 15-year-old girl in 1982. Raped her, strangled her with her shoelace, and took her books. He then kindly telephoned the parents at home. "Hello, Mrs. Jordan, Susie isn't home from school yet, is she?... You will never see your daughter again. You can find her body on the corner of Victoria and Gibson"

Charming gentleman, fit to breathe the same air as the rest of us.

NTM

jugger0

jugger0 wrote: »

So you think its good to keep a killer or rapist in a small room for the rest of their life? or the fact that we have to pay to keep these things alive? People who cannot be reintroduced into society, dont see the point in dragging out their existence.

Generally costs more to kill them
And do we really want to argue about a person's life worth in terms of money?
And frankly wouldn't that be a lot more punishment than killing them - keeping them locked up?

-Trek-

Stinicker wrote: »

The Death Penalty should be brought back in Ireland, I can think of many I'd send to a long drop with a short rope.

I do love when the keyboard justice league comes out with the 'lets hang em high' response

One of the very few reasons I'm proud to be Irish and European is that as a majority we have a respect for life. I do agree that our own justice system needs a radical shake up so that the thugs don't simply walk in the front door of prison and straight out the back.
Secondly who are we kidding? we as a nation couldn't organise a p!ss up in a brewery (to which there are many examples!) and all of a sudden your going to trust our courts to hand this type of punishment out as a sentence, oh dear I better go look for the *facepalm* link fast.
And lastly there was a very good reason it was abolished in the first place as it was impossible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person was correctly found guilty.

cypharius

"The 41-year-old was convicted of plotting to kill her husband, Julian Lewis, and her stepson, Charles Lewis. She persuaded two men to carry out the murders in return for sex and money. The two men received life sentences."

I don't care if she's stupid, that's more of a reason for her to be executed.

"Lewis's motive was primarily money, according to the prosecutor in the case. She intended to pick up $250,000 (£160,000) in insurance from a policy Charles Lewis had taken out and which passed to his father on his death."


She was responsible for double homicide for the price of a small house, and the bitch didn't even do it herself!


IMO the two men should be executed too.

KeithAFC

People who kill people KNOW what they doing. Don't matter if your IQ is 5.

HavingCrack

I'm so fed up of the "justice has been served" and "lets bring back the death penalty" brigade on After Hours. The vast majority of them aren't even capable of having a proper debate on the issue.

There has been far too many innocent people executed in the United States for crimes they didn't commit. I presume your answer is tough **** yes?

Economically speaking it is more expensive to execute someone in the US than it is to imprison them for life.

Thirdly, (and this is my opinion rather than fact) it constitutes a gross misuse of state power and is in effect state sanctioned murder.

Dudess

KeithAFC wrote: »

People who kill people KNOW what they doing. Don't matter if your IQ is 5.

True. A lot of the pro death penalty crew here seem to have an IQ of much lower than 72 - and they'd know what they were doing if they killed someone.

jill_valentine

Dudess wrote: »

I don't see though how the fact that there is still capital punishment in America therefore makes everyone in the West even the slightest bit of a glasshouse dweller (if that's what you're saying - sorry if it isn't). It wouldn't make me any less critical of Iran, but at the same time, I would be just as critical of the death penalty in the States (or anywhere).

Maybe "hypocrisy" is the wrong word, but at the same time, there's no doubt it cheapens America's moral currency every time it executes somebody. From Iran's point of view, the only difference between the two is that the US has the nerve to gussy up the process and pat themselves on the back for doing so.

The distinction between an injection and a stoning doesn't seem overly important after the fact. I mean, when an injection goes wrong - and it could be going wrong very often indeed without our knowing - the consequences are absolutely nightmarish.

jugger0 wrote: »

I agree 100%

Serial killers and rapists should be executed without appeals, once your convicted of a crime like that, its lights out for you.

Grand so, whip out the Harry Potter sorting hat and we'll figure out beyond a doubt who is innocent or guilty.

Going back to that "gussying it up" idea, for America to execute people with something approaching a clear conscience it needs to believe that it has exhausted every possible avenue to make sure they got the right guy. The US goes to the greatest lengths of any Death Penalty country to to just that. Still, in practice, even after all the millions of dollars and years of appeals, between 5 and 10% of the people on Death Row are innocent - and the US as we know it has executed around 13000 people since it's foundation. That's an alarming bit of maths. By absolutely no coincidence, around 80% of the people on Death Row were unable to afford their own attorney and relied upon a court-appointed lawyer.

So you can either have a bargain basement execution that kills a whole bunch of innocent people, or you can have one that only kills a few innocent people. That's the best you're going to get. There is no way of implementing a death penalty without executing innocent people.

Which doesn't sound like any kind of justice to me.

Manic Moran

And lastly there was a very good reason it was abolished in the first place as it was impossible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person was correctly found guilty

Beyond reasonable doubt is the current standard for any conviction. I would be happy enough to see the DP moved to a 'beyond any doubt at all' standard. It is possible to do so, for example, the guy shot by firing squad in Utah recently had killed a cop in the courthouse in front of dozens of witnesses, and they certainly knew who he was because he was in the courthouse after being arrested and charged for a different offence. Yigal Amir killed Yitzhak Rabin in front of hundreds of people, and on camera.

NTM

gizmo

HavingCrack wrote: »

There has been far too many innocent people executed in the United States for crimes they didn't commit. I presume your answer is tough **** yes?

What's the difference between being innocent and then executed and being innocent and having to serve life without the possibility of parole?

jill_valentine

You can always be freed, for one thing. For another, your family still has you, rather than your corpse, even if you're behind bars.

gizmo

jill_valentine wrote: »

You can always be freed, for one thing. For another, your family still has you, rather than your corpse, even if you're behind bars.

I was under the impression that life without parole negated that possibility?

The family issue is a fair point however if one is to consider the feelings of the family of the accused, why should one not consider the family of the murdered party?

Mrmoe

HavingCrack wrote: »

The vast majority of them aren't even capable of having a proper debate on the issue.
.

Yes definitely true, it's not as if people here state state that those posters pro death penalty have low IQ's.:rolleyes:

jill_valentine

gizmo wrote: »

I was under the impression that life without parole negated that possibility?

I'm thinking in the case of later proveable innocence.

gizmo wrote: »

The family issue is a fair point however if one is to consider the feelings of the family of the accused, why should one not consider the family of the murdered party?

Aside from satisfying a very understandable human urge for revenge, I don't see what benefit it brings them. Their own loved one is no less dead, and the loss no less irreparable for being doubled.

HavingCrack

gizmo wrote: »

What's the difference between being innocent and then executed and being innocent and having to serve life without the possibility of parole?

You may later be released if new evidence comes to light that makes it possible for you to be foudn not guilty, if you're dead eh well it doesn't matter ??

Mrmoe wrote: »

Yes definitely true, it's not as if people here state state that those posters pro death penalty have low IQ's.:rolleyes:

Fair enough but it doesn't make those shouting for the death penalty to be re introduced any more sensible.

gizmo

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm thinking in the case of later proveable innocence.

Ah but that is why those on death row have an lengthy appeals procedure. Given that said procedure is still finite, the sentences are quite similar in their finality.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Aside from satisfying a very understandable human urge for revenge, I don't see what benefit it brings them. Their own loved one is no less dead, and the loss no less irreparable for being doubled.

True, however looking at it from the other direction, clearly the murderer didn't have any respect for his own family when they committed the crime. Is it not a bit much for the courts to be doing this for them now that he has been found guilty?

Dudess

Mrmoe wrote: »

Yes definitely true, it's not as if people here state state that those posters pro death penalty have low IQ's.:rolleyes:

Not all to be fair...

unknown13

The death penalty is wrong. There is no appeal from the Grave. I personally would rather see people rot in prison for 50 years and wake up everyday thinking why the hell they got into prison rather than be put to death after 10 or so years.

Flojo

bluewolf wrote: »

Generally costs more to kill them
And do we really want to argue about a person's life worth in terms of money?
And frankly wouldn't that be a lot more punishment than killing them - keeping them locked up?

The appeal for a execution trial costs more than a life without parole trial even though it's teh same bloody trial.. gah so many people around the net with fluffed up information on the subject.

That is NOT including the other costs of keeping them alive.

In the long run incarcerating them does cost more.

Flojo

jill_valentine wrote: »

Aside from satisfying a very understandable human urge for revenge, I don't see what benefit it brings them. Their own loved one is no less dead, and the loss no less irreparable for being doubled.

A sense of closure to it all, knowing that evil person is gone and helps with moving on...

Flojo

Flojo wrote: »

The appeal for a execution trial costs more than a life without parole trial even though it's teh same bloody trial.. gah so many people around the net with fluffed up information on the subject.

That is NOT including the other costs of keeping them alive.

In the long run incarcerating them does cost more.

I did go off and research it a bit at one stage, I'm not repeating something I heard somewhere.
I'm really not bothered going to find it again though.
Something about the sheer number of appeals that are made and keeping them alive during that process.

HavingCrack

Flojo wrote: »

A sense of closure to it all, knowing that evil person is gone and helps with moving on...

In your opinion maybe...

Flojo

HavingCrack wrote: »

In your opinion maybe...

Obviously and the opinion of plenty of others on the internet aswell including those who worked alongside with the victims families.

Not saying it's true for all but it does help some people. Jill said she doesn't see the benefit... I gave my thoughts on the subject.

Mr. Presentable

The death penalty is wrong in my opinion. But. Given it is in place in some juristictions, why would either gender or intelligence come into the reckoning?

We have a gender imbalance in Ireland. It seems also to be in place in the USA.

IQ72. Where would the apologists have the cut-off point?
Death at IQ 72 but not at 71?
Death at 73 but not at 72? Death at 82 but not at 81?

You can see there's a problem. Either someone is so dangerous they must not be allowed live, regardless of sex/religion/IQ/colour etc, or they are not.

IMHO the executed in this case was no danger to society at large and should not have been executed, but if the penalty applied would also have done to a male/Christian/genius then apply it now.

gizmo

Flojo wrote: »

The appeal for a execution trial costs more than a life without parole trial even though it's teh same bloody trial.. gah so many people around the net with fluffed up information on the subject.

You have any links showing this? I find it quite odd indeed.

gizmo

gizmo wrote: »

You have any links showing this? I find it quite odd indeed.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

mentions long term ones as well

KaiserMc

Moments before her execution, Lewis asked if her husband's daughter — her stepdaughter — was near. She was. Kathy Clifton was in an adjacent witness room blocked from the inmate's view by a two-way mirror.
"I want Kathy to know that I love her and I'm very sorry," Lewis said.
Then, as the drugs flowed into her body, her feet bobbed but she otherwise remained motionless. A guard lightly tapped her on the shoulder reassuringly as she slipped into death.

The above Lines are supposedly the last moments of Teresa's life and clearly she was in a state of delusion ..How dare she apologise in the way that she did,this woman was clearly responsible for wiping out a family of men for financial gain and she had the 'Gall' to proclaim 'Love and 'Sorrow' after what she had initiated to the daughter of the deceased , to those who proclaim that this was a wrongful sentence handed down by her peers ,who among you would have invited this woman to live amongst you ?.

jill_valentine

False argument. None of us are saying killers should be given an "I was good at the doctor today" sticker and sent on their way.

gizmo wrote: »

True, however looking at it from the other direction, clearly the murderer didn't have any respect for his own family when they committed the crime. Is it not a bit much for the courts to be doing this for them now that he has been found guilty?

We're not supposed to let murderers set the pace for our morals as a society, which is pretty much what this all boils down to. Murder is either wrong or it isn't. I don't see how it suddenly becomes okay because the state is doing it in a nice clean room - it is a premeditated killing all the same, one done because ultimately, somebody somewhere made the decision over who gets to live and who gets to die. I would not trust an individual with that authority, and I would not want to live in a state that takes it upon itself to dispose of it's own people.

gizmo

Thanks for the links bluewolf, I'll give them a read over.

jill_valentine wrote: »

We're not supposed to let murderers set the pace for our morals as a society, which is pretty much what this all boils down to. Murder is either wrong or it isn't. I don't see how it suddenly becomes okay because the state is doing it in a nice clean room - it is a premeditated killing all the same, one done because ultimately, somebody somewhere made the decision over who gets to live and who gets to die. I would not trust an individual with that authority, and I would not want to live in a state that takes it upon itself to dispose of it's own people.

Yet there is a difference between legal imprisonment by the state and false imprisonment? Of course I'm perfectly aware there is a large difference between imprisonment and murder but in this context I feel the above reasoning doesn't hold true.

On as sidenote, what happens when a convicted killed who, if the death penalty had existed in their jurisdiction would have received it, is instead sentenced to life in jail without the possibility of parole yet while serving his time, murders another inmate who would have otherwise been perfectly able to serve their time otherwise? At what point, if any, do you think one has to make the decision that said person is simply too dangerous to allow live?

More links
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials.
More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

So I suppose it's a more costly process because it needs to be more in depth, which makes sense. It also seems to mean long term, full cost of life without parole, rather than just the processes themselves.

Flojo

bluewolf wrote: »

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

mentions long term ones as well

Unfortunately, your site makes absolutely no effort to present any pro-death penalty views, and liberally spreads propaganda and rhetoric on behalf of "the cause."


Here's another link explaining a few things aswell....
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html#D.Cost


See theres plenty of info out there about it out. Hard to know which is truthful seeing as there are more anti DP people out there than pro.


THOUGHTS:
I've got to lean in favor of the death penalty. I just believe, in some situations, that someone who takes the lives of multiple people or very young children should pay the ultimate sacrifice... I believe that those who commit horrific acts won't show any remorse or feel bad about it in their cell.. so get rid of them. The ones who do show remorse or regret should be given LWOP so that they may think about what they have done eveyday for the rest of their lives.
In my opinion once the state has given out the sentence I reckon they should consider the opinions of the families.. for example if the death sentence was handed down the families of the victim should have a choice on whether they deem it the correct punishment or not.

DETERRENCE:
Is it a deterrence? It's hard to prove really because in more countries with the DP in place the number of people executed per year as compared to those sentenced to death is a very small proportion.
It would seem that in countries like Singapore that almost always carry out the death sentence in such cases, it has worked because there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent when the crime required planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment no punishment will act as a deterrent.
The anti DP campaigners always argue that death is not a deterrent and usually cites studies based on American states to prove their point. This is, in my opinion, flawed and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading. The rates for murders in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of the death penalty in 1964.

COST:
Some states charge so much more per person when it comes to DP cases...in California it's like 114million per annum while in Florida it only costs 51million. I dont understand why they need to make it so costly.. the LWOP appeals are dragged out aswell yet cost less? Doesn't make any sense. That's in America anyways...as mentioned above the anti DP campaigners always cite the US and the highest cost of executing someone over life in prison, but while this is true for most states in America, that only has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years. In Britain in the 20th century the average wait time on death row was from 3 to 8 weeks and one appeal was allowed.
Why can't this be applied now in the states? What with how far forensic technology has come I think it should be applied. You hear about all the mistakes made but that was mainly years ago was forensics was fairly sh!te, of course once it comes out now people think "oh god thats awful, down with the death penalty".

INNOCENT:
I agree it is awful hearing about those innocent people but we are far more technologically advanced now. For example once the evidence is set in stone and the DNA results etc all match up to the accused and after their appeal has been shot down - caught red-handed, why not do away with them? Once the families of the victims approve of course.
Less mistakes... less money... less problems!


Not my fault the states are doing it wrong. Why just talk about them anyways plenty of other countries apply the death penalty!!


"Oh but thats unconstitutional!"... so is killing innocent people! They're going to keep doing it so give them a taste of their own medicine... let them experiance what it is like to die by the hands of someone else.

jill_valentine

Flojo wrote: »

Not my fault the states are doing it wrong. Why just talk about them anyways plenty of other countries apply the death penalty!!

Indeed. Countries like North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... It's an illustrious club alright.

We talk about the US because we think of it as the most civilised country that still practices capital punishment, and even they get it's pursuit and application arseways consistently. Also, the only other countries that execute more of their own people are China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Flojo wrote: »

"Oh but thats unconstitutional!"... so is killing innocent people!

Again, I don't think the standard set by the murderer is the one I want my government to aspire to.

Aside from the sheer amorality of making a formal process of murder, it doesn't make economic sense, it cannot be practiced without sacrificing a percentage of completely innocent citizens, and it completely fails as a crime deterrent. Indeed, many countries that abolished the death penalty reported a decline in serious crime afterwards, likely because the legal system could focus on actually usefully dealing with crime rather than just taking a few token heads to spike on the city walls for all to see.

Flojo

jill_valentine wrote: »

Indeed. Countries like North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... It's an illustrious club alright.

We talk about the US because we think of it as the most civilised country that still practices capital punishment, and even they get it's pursuit and application arseways consistently. Also, the only other countries that execute more of their own people are China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I am talking about in terms of cost.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Again, I don't think the standard set by the murderer is the one I want my government to aspire to.

Aside from the sheer amorality of making a formal process of murder, it doesn't make economic sense, it cannot be practiced without sacrificing a percentage of completely innocent citizens, and it completely fails as a crime deterrent. Indeed, many countries that abolished the death penalty reported a decline in serious crime afterwards, likely because the legal system could focus on actually usefully dealing with crime rather than just taking a few token heads to spike on the city walls for all to see.

Your opinion and you're welcome to it, as am I! Did you just skip through what I wrote above? Fair enough!

bnt

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, but one point I feel I should make one point: I wouldn't bother trying to judge the validity or effectiveness of capital punishment by the American systems. Note how I said systems, plural, since W. Virginia is different to California or Texas, and there's little consistency in sentencing or execution, but there are certain factors. Inmates sentenced to death spend years on "death row" and only a tiny minority are ever executed, which diminishes any possible deterrence effect. (How many Rap albums have been released on "Death Row Records"?). Singapore has already been mentioned: I've never been there, but I know that trying to smuggle drugs in there would be a very bad idea. That sounds like deterrence to me: you'd need to be stupid - or suicidal - to try that.

Some previous posters seem to be under the impression that this execution was carried out hastily or without sufficient examination of the case. Well, the record shows that this case went through multiple appeals since the original sentence was passed in 2003, all the way to the US Supreme Court. Would the governor be expected to know something that all the appeals courts didn't?