Competence required to be executed in Indiana

...Ghost...

Blazer wrote: »

There's a huge difference between a violent murdering criminal and someone like her.
A violent murdering criminal kills someone knowing full well what they are doing and still goes ahead and does it.
Someone who's been traumatized like she has been is probably fairly doubtful.
Generally I am for the death penalty..but not in this case.

In this case, she is a violent murdering criminal though. I took a quick glance at another article and it was pre-meditated.

*She became friendly with the victim online via a supposed shared love of dogs.
*She googled how to carry out a c-section and purchased a kit to do it.
*She drove 170 miles to the victims house under the guise of buying a puppy.
*She violently murdered her victim.
*She used a kitchen knife to cut the unborn child from the dead victim.
*She tried to pass the baby off as her own to somehow win custody of 2 of her own 4 children (don't know much about that part).

It wasn't a case of her losing her mind and bludgeoning someone with rock. She planned it all. As for the death penalty applying, as I said, it's not something I agree with. My OP was to question why she was getting preferential treatment based on an argument probably every person on death row has given....insanity.

banie01 wrote: »

While you may think it's a deterrent, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that it isn't.
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2015/04/theres-no-evidence-death-penalty-acts-deterrent
That's an overview that will lead to further reading.

The most imprisoned nation per capita, is the US.
How is the death sentence working out for them?
The murder rate there per 100k is @5 with death penalty in many jurisdictions.
If the death penalty works?
Why is the comparable rate in Ireland 0.85 per 100k?
Or just 1.2 per 100k in the UK and Wales?
https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/intentional-homicide-victims


The deprivation of a convicts liberty is punishment.
The penal service can choose to ensure a path towards education and reform is available.
Or it can choose to dehumanise inmates, feed them, lock them, let them out an hour a day and otherwise throw away the key.

Dehumanisation is from the US example, clearly not working.
It's a broken penal system that operates on a huge degree of reoffending.
Don't hold it up as an example as anything other than what not to do.

I think our very low rate has a lot to do with the revolving door system. Also the prisons in America are private institutions, are they not? So they operate on a for profit basis. Hardly comparable to us.

Most criminals in Ireland give their sob story via their free solicitor and get a small fine and a warning not to come to the attention of the Gardai for a few months. It's not uncommon to see defendants with 20, 40, 100+ convictions getting this treatment. I witnessed it myself when I was a witness to an assault. I saw people with dozens of convictions, violent and non-violent and not a single one was given any time behind bars with the exception of the one I was there to testify on. He was already serving time for punching a Garda and was disputing CCTV footage which caught him in the act. He got a couple of extra months added to his sentence.

...Ghost...

Lumen wrote: »

Of relevance to your enumeration of possible motives for murder, one of the (I presume) unintended consequences of three strikes policy is that if you're two strikes down and committing your third crime (say, a burglary) you have a twisted incentive to murder the victims and risk a low probability death sentence so as to not leave any witnesses and risk a high probability life sentence.

That didn't stop Renua from proposing it as a policy:

https://www.thejournal.ie/renua-three-strikes-rule-2529895-Jan2016/

Now, whether you think burglary is worthy of a life sentence or not, if I ever find myself on the receiving end of a burglary I'd rather not have to worry about the scumbags weighing up murdering me to cover it up.

So, harsh punishment is not necessarily a deterrent, sometimes it's an incentive to commit a more serious crime.

I think you meant to respond to a different poster?

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't need any. You need to be able to support the source you approve - while at the same time saying the source is incompetent.

Do you deny the first last line of defence for most offenders is abuse or mentalism?

OK, so your alternative source is between your ears. Fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by "first last line of defence", but I believe as far a the criminal justice system in Ireland is concerned that you're entirely wrong that abuse is a defence, it's introduced in mitigation if at all, so it only has bearing on sentencing rather than guilt. And when introduced in mitigation, it is usually backed by expert testimony (independent forensic psychologist).

banie01

...Ghost... wrote: »

I think our very low rate has a lot to do with the revolving door system. Also the prisons in America are private institutions, are they not? So they operate on a for profit basis. Hardly comparable to us.

Most criminals in Ireland give their sob story via their free solicitor and get a small fine and a warning not to come to the attention of the Gardai for a few months. It's not uncommon to see defendants with 20, 40, 100+ convictions getting this treatment. I witnessed it myself when I was a witness to an assault. I saw people with dozens of convictions, violent and non-violent and not a single one was given any time behind bars with the exception of the one I was there to testify on. He was already serving time for punching a Garda and was disputing CCTV footage which caught him in the act. He got a couple of extra months added to his sentence.

Some US prisons are for profit, some aren't.
What does that have to do with the actual comparable per capita murder rate?
I am at a loss to follow the logic of our "revolving door" prison system means a lower murder rate?

Could you outline how more convicted criminals loose, equates to less violent crime and in particular murder commited here?
Than in the US, where they tend to be a lot more aggressive in their sentencing?

Surely with all the criminals we have on the loose the opposite would hold true, and we'd be akin to Venezuela for murder rates?

CtevenSrowder

randd1 wrote: »

But you'd be dead, so you wouldn't care either way.

As an aside, what is the rate of executed innocent people? And I mean actual innocent, as in someone wrongly convicted.

I'm not dead now, so I do care. You've missed the point somewhat.

Nermal

Lumen wrote: »

Of relevance to your enumeration of possible motives for murder, one of the (I presume) unintended consequences of three strikes policy is that if you're two strikes down and committing your third crime (say, a burglary) you have a twisted incentive to murder the victims and risk a low probability death sentence so as to not leave any witnesses and risk a high probability life sentence.

Twaddle. Elsewhere in the thread there is ongoing argument as to whether a life sentence is even more of a punishment than a death sentence.

A mind that responds to logically to incentives would not have embarked upon a burglary in the first place.

What matter is it what criminals think? What matters are the principles of right and wrong.

Lumen

Nermal wrote: »

What matter is it what criminals think?

It is relevant to the question of deterrent, and also mens rea.

...Ghost...

banie01 wrote: »

Some US prisons are for profit, some aren't.
What does that have to do with the actual comparable per capita murder rate?
I am at a loss to follow the logic of our "revolving door" prison system means a lower murder rate?

Could you outline how more convicted criminals loose, equates to less violent crime and in particular murder commited here?
Than in the US, where they tend to be a lot more aggressive in their sentencing?

Surely with all the criminals we have on the loose the opposite would hold true, and we'd be akin to Venezuela for murder rates?

My mistake. I misread your post and missed the focus on murders. I took it to be an overall prison population.

...Ghost...

randd1 wrote: »

But you'd be dead, so you wouldn't care either way.

As an aside, what is the rate of executed innocent people? And I mean actual innocent, as in someone wrongly convicted.

I suspect the person would have cared alot before being put to death.

I also suspect that the rate/percentage of innocent executed to be much higher than the published figure, because there is much less appetite to overturn a dead mans conviction.

Gatling

The biggest issue with American prison system is many are locked up on plea deals and many don't ever don't get out and even when they do get out they are still considered the bad guy even when Proven set up by corrupt cops

For this particular case she suffered horrendously as a child and at some point suffered a brain injury ,does that play a part in her crime possibly , possibly not I believe she would have had various psychological exams during and possibly after her initial trial ,
If she spent the rest of her natural life behind bars I'd be happy if a court has decided it's death then there will be only one likely outcome ,
There has to be a balance ,does suffering a bad childhood equate to a get out of jail card ,

biko

Does she herself want clemency?

Feisar

Some people just need to be put down. There is no need to bring right or wrong into it.

Kraftwerk

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Just out of curiosity. If she's described as seriously mentally ill and capable of incredibly disturbing actions due to her illness then can a history based mostly on her own statements be credible as evidence? Even backed up by the report, the details and scale of the abuse is her story.

Does going down the road of pleading insanity etc render the defendants own testimony less credible? Seems a bit of a contradiction in a legal sense that you're arguing your client is not competent due to mental illness and using their own testimony as evidence of that lack of competence.

Interesting point

I see over on wiki, she originally tried a different defence - her brother did it

During her trial in federal court, her defense attorneys, led by Frederick Duchardt, asserted that she had pseudocyesis, a mental condition that causes a woman to falsely believe she is pregnant and exhibit outward signs of pregnancy.According to The Guardian, Duchardt attempted to follow this line of defense only one week before the trial began, after being forced to abandon a contradictory argument that Stinnett was murdered by Montgomery's brother Tommy, who had an alibi. As a result, Montgomery's family refused to co-operate with Duchardt and describe her background to the jury

Be right back

Her sentence has been carried out.

TheValeyard

Be right back wrote: »

Her sentence has been carried out.

First woman executed since 1953.

FTA69

Nobody is denying the horror of the act that this woman committed but the amount of chest-puffing on this thread about someone who was clearly deeply mentally disturbed being premeditatedly killed by the state is pathetic to be honest, America is a deeply f*cked up place in many respects.

Ashbourne hoop

Death Penalty in 2021 is barbaric and has no place in modern society, regardless of the crime committed.

mohawk

FTA69 wrote: »

Nobody is denying the horror of the act that this woman committed but the amount of chest-puffing on this thread about someone who was clearly deeply mentally disturbed being premeditatedly killed by the state is pathetic to be honest, America is a deeply f*cked up place in many respects.

I agree totally.
What she did was horrendous. No denying that and she should be in prison for it. I don’t think a state should murder a citizen it let down so badly. There were opportunities for the state to intervene when she was a child and nothing was done to help her.

...Ghost...

A cursory search doesn't reveal any investigation into any of her allegations. Even the mention of an MRI scan shows no detail as to when, or if it was really carried out. In any event, the loss of life is regrettable.

Lumen

...Ghost... wrote: »

A cursory search doesn't reveal any investigation into any of her allegations. Even the mention of an MRI scan shows no detail as to when, or if it was really carried out.

You could start with this 184 page report linked from the article:

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20429811-jan-vogelsang-social-history

EDit

According to an article i read on the BBC yesterday, the allegations regarding her abusive upbringing were backed up by her half-sister and other whole/half siblings. TBH, it read like a fairly typical story of generations of “the abused becoming the abuser” (particularly in relation to her mother).

I personally think she was horrifically abused as a child and that abuse continued into her adult relationships, although that does not excuse what she did (although it does somewhat explain it)

GreeBo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't think theres any reasoning in the world you could give me to justify somebody violently cutting a baby out of a heavily pregnant woman that wouldn't have me wishing death upon them.

So being mentally ill isn't a reason?

If you beat a dog every day of its life you cant then put it down because it bites someone.

Feisar

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Death Penalty in 2021 is barbaric and has no place in modern society, regardless of the crime committed.

There is no need to bring emotions into it. It's just about cutting out the rot.

GreeBo

Lumen wrote: »

You could start with this 184 page report linked from the article:

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20429811-jan-vogelsang-social-history

I think (hope!) his point was that it seems like those who failed this women are getting away with it.

Zookey123

GreeBo wrote: »

I think (hope!) his point was that it seems like those who failed this women are getting away with it.

Yeah its mad to think that the same state that let her down on so many occasions is the same one that's putting her down now. Where's the accountability for what happened to her? Where is the justice for that?

RollieFingers

She set up the meeting under the guise of picking up a puppy, before strangling the pregnant victim and using a knife to cut the baby from the womb. So she knew what she was doing by setting up the meeting. I'd have to say my sympathies are more with the murder victim than the perpetrator in this case.

Lumen

RollieFingers wrote: »

I'd have to say my sympathies are more with the murder victim than the perpetrator in this case.

The balancing of those sympathies is a strawman.

GreeBo

RollieFingers wrote: »

She set up the meeting under the guise of picking up a puppy, before strangling the pregnant victim and using a knife to cut the baby from the womb. So she knew what she was doing by setting up the meeting. I'd have to say my sympathies are more with the murder victim than the perpetrator in this case.

There are two victims in this case, 1 of them has been executed.

Tchaikovsky

TheValeyard wrote: »

First woman executed since 1953.

First federal execution of a woman since 1953. Aileen Wuornos was probably the most notable to be executed by a state - she was executed in Florida in 2002.

seamus

Feisar wrote: »

There is no need to bring emotions into it. It's just about cutting out the rot.

Since execution has been in use for virtually all of human history and has failed to "cut out the rot", at what point do you accept that it doesn't actually work?