On September 23rd, 2010 a woman, was stretched out on a duree to have her arm punctured with a lethal cocktail of chemicals designed to stop a working, healthy heart. This scence that played itself out in Greensville Corectional Center sent shock waves across the world. For one, this incident put the USA in the same league as Iran, China and sundry other countries which routinely carry out executions and impose the death penalty even on women. I must say that I do not think that a criminal who takes another human being's life deserves mercy so my position is not that of a liberal who oppose the death peanlty on the round thatthe state does not have the right to tke life. My position is based on the facts ofthis particular case as I have been able to glean from sources accessible to me. Nor I am interested in the huge question whether the lethal injection method of excecution is a "cruel and unusual punishment" the constitutionality of which the US Supreme Court will eventually decide.
The woman who was killed on September 23 rd 2010, Tresa Lewis, was aged around 45 and by all accounts seemed to be the victim of circumstances. Her mental abilities were extremely restricted and even the Court found that she had an IQ of around 70 making her a prime candidate for defence under the "diminished respomsibility" condition. Yet the Court found her guilty, awarded her the capital punishment and even theGovernor did not intervene to stop her excecution. I think the justice was seriously compromised in this particular case.
The facts are simple. Tresa Lewis was married to Julian for the second time and her husband had a son and both had good insurance policies to their credit. Apparently at the instigation of Mathew Shallenberger and his accomplice Rodney Fuller, Tresa Lewis allowed both these men to enter her house on October 2, 2002 and the husband and step son were shot dead. At first the woman and her accomplices made it appear as ifthe killing had taken place during a break in and robbery. Shallenberger who actually killed the two men was give only life in prison and he subsequently killed himself.
When it is clear that Tresa Lewis did not pull the trigger and her possessedonly extremely limited moral and intellectual ability, I wonder on what grounds the death penalty was imposed. There is no doubt that she facilitated the crime but she did not actually carry out the killing and therefore under the law she cannot be guilty of a capital offence.
But, retardation is a medical diagnosis that can prevent you from getting a marriage license- at least in Michigan. Having an IQ test performed AFTER conviction (and the person knowing why they were being tested) could be suspect.
Also, if there were that many mentally handicapped adults (ie: verifiable retardation) then there WOULD be a law that you had to be proven mentally able to be married and care for children.
Really? I haven't read anything where that was proven in court.
That is his attempt at spin and rewriting the facts. The claim she was manipulated was part of her defense, but of course never proven since it is not true.
I do not understand why such a fuss is made. I did not say that ececuting a woman was in a sense bad or barbaric. I have stated that the USS Court will take a call on the issue of the method of excecution and I have not ventured into that rather troublesome terrain. I have said and I maintain that the woman in question was not the one who did the actual shooting. The killer only got a life sentence whereas the woman was put to death even though she was only an accessory to the crime. There is also the large issue of mental competence. She may not have unsderstood the implications of her actions inview of her limited IQ.
OP: You seem to think that women aren't real people. That women are angels sent down from heaven to be awarded to righteous men to be used for child bearing and sex. Contrary to your misogynistic views, women are PEOPLE, fully capable of thought, invention, philosophy, and in this case, premeditated murder and being punished.
Also, you seem to think that the USA executing a someone convicted of first degree murder (who is a woman) is the same as Iran murdering a woman for wearing makeup, or for being raped (being a rape victim makes you guilty of infidelity by sharia law)...
I can't decide which of those two is more stupid, ignorant, and vile.
There are of course other issues, but those the most glaring, and Dr Guy already picked apart your post in his first reply to this atrocity.
Maybe this will help:
Exactly. It is not like it was hidden.
Any sob stories for Steven Hayes? Apparently he has mental issues too. I'd throw the switch, valve, or lever myself if I could for what he did to that family.
My point was not that she did a crime. It is clear as daylight and there is no use belabouring the same point. It makes no difference whether a male or a female is involved in the crime. The point was only the degree of cuplability when the person who ACTUALLY KILLED i.e pulled the trigger was awarded only a reduced sentence and this woman was killed.
ted kaczynski was a genius. If you look at what he did for the field of math (which I have) he did some amazing things.
If people agrue that someone's IQ is too low and they aren't competent then what about the geniuses that commit murder? Shouldn't they be exonorated too? I mean think about their IQ is so high that it should be benefitical to keep them.
I'm not being completely serious with that comment. First, I don't care if the world is shocked by what we do. The world doesn't dictate what we do. Second, our justice systems needs some major rehauling but I don't think that will ever happen.
For those who are against execution. So are you for locking up people for life? Prison was not originally intended to be that type of punishment. What I mean by that comment is that prison was not intended to be used to hold a large number of people for life. Obviously, in centuries past there were people that were imprisoned yet the conditions were far worse on the inside than on the outside of the walls. They also had less people locked up.
I lived in Colorado. Colorado has the Supermax prison that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in U.S. I have friends that have worked there. They tell me horror stories of countless instances of stuff happening. When they deliver meals, for example, the guards hide behind a shield that's on a pulley system (its not the riot shield for it is longer/thicker probably 5 ft if not longer). All the guards are doing are just inserting food into a tiny slot. They don't serve utensils of any type so the food is eaten by hands.
Now what will happen is that inmates will make weapons (knives and darts) out of paper mache. They will usually put dookie or other body discharges on the tip of the item. If it hits or nixs you most of the inmates have some type of STD or other transmitable disease that you would rather not get. The other thing is when you try to put the food in the slot inmates will try to puncture your hand or grab your hand (try to damage your hand in a number of other ways). Yes, they do have protective gloves but I'm sure you can imagine how hard it is to handle/do anything with protective gloves on. Obviously, some form of reward system should be set up (I believe they do have a reward system) but let's be honest here you are in solitary confinement for 23 hours and only get 1 hour of a controlled activity. Do you really think a reward system will really work in that situation?
I'm all for forced labor and chain gangs. Then you have people screaming that's inhumane and what about the people who can't physically work. Usually other non-sense will come forth besides those two points. We can't forget the unions (even though less than 15% at most of people in the U.S are in a union) never like that because most of the jobs cut into union jobs.
Most of those people in Supermax prison refuse to be part of a society. I am against doing what Mexico, Cuba, and China regularly do and send your unwanted to another country.
Even with chain gains and forced labor there are some people who would absolutely refuse to be part of a society and they will do what they want. What should we do with people like that?
Besides electing them to congress or have them in congress?
Obviously, this article was about a woman who has a low IQ that was executed. What does people or the world suggest that we do with people who refuse to follow laws of a society? Who say when 'I get out I'm going to just kill another person, rape someone else again, or destory another family' what do you do with someone with that attitude?
Oh? because that is what you say. You say that the USA kills a woman, not USA executes a murderer. And then you rant and rave about women's rights and how wrong it is to "kill" (execute) them for no reason other then their gender. You clearly are saying that women are not real people.
As for culpability... she HIRED the guys who pulled the trigger to commit murder. This makes her more guilty. although, that the gunmen got life in prison instead of the death penalty as well is odd... but has nothing to do with gender (most murderers for hire are men, and most are executed). If not being the one who pulls the trigger mattered we would have quite a situation with crime lords just ordering others to kill with impunity. For a society to function a person paying another to commit a crime MUST bear the full punishment of that crime. All of them were guilty of MORE then just first degree murder. She was ALSO guilty of hiring a gunmen to commit murder, they were also guilty of being assassins for hire.
Now, it is possible that she was actually a patsy as some claim, manipulated by the gunmen into going along with the plot... but that has nothing to do with being a woman. Only sexist people who don't consider women to be real people would care to even mention the genders of the people involved. Next time, speak only about the death penalty itself and why you think its wrong and we wouldn't point out how sexist you are, because you wouldn't BE sexist if you do that.
Perfect Point. Bahu, Taltamir just summed up why you got so much heat for this article. Perhaps if you had rephrased your objection, more would have agreed with you - or at least not disagreed so vehemently.
Frankly this heat did surprise me because nowhere I have implied that the gender wasd the issue. Ofcourse, I am still a firm believer in the the innocence of Ethel Rosenberg but not because she was a woman but because her brother framed her so that he could escape. Now the real poinmt of all my rather extended intervention was to drive home just one point: Theresa did wrong I do not dispute it and have said so in my post. My point was different: She did not actually kill and the killer in this case Rodney got a lesser sentence.
I do not want another fight on my hands. But really that Iranian woman's case was no different. She too stands accuesed and proven so of havinmg arranged the murder of her husband with the help of her married lover. And when the Iranians say that she has to be excecuted for the crime the whole world stands up and bays--killing a woman How very barbaric of the Iranians and so on. Why does the same arguments put forward so eloquently by so may do not apply to Iran.
No, the objection there (right or wrong) was the method of execution, not the verdict. Quite frankly, I do have 2 thoughts on the Iranian issue.
#1: For a proven liar (Iran), how can we trust that the death sentence was not political? Quite frankly, we cannot. So I think she is innocent. After all, the only proof they have of her guilt is the word of her male adulterer, and since in that society the word of a male trumps the word of a female (even more so than the standard "all else being equal" cliche), there is no empirical reason to believe she is guilty of anything but being raped.
#2: A society that places no value on a life is not going to worry about ending it. Iran has already shown that women have no value as sentient human beings (only as brood vessels). If you want to think that equates to the US judicial system, then that is your prerogative. But doing so means abandoning any hope for objectivity on your part, and renders any argument you make no more than a Goebbels screed that lacks any facts, and is purely incendiary.
Frankly this heat did surprise me because nowhere I have implied that the gender wasd the issue.
implied nothing, you outright stated it was the issue.
USA SHOCKS THE WORLD BY EXECUTING A WOMAN
this incident put the USA in the same league as Iran, China and sundry other countries which routinely carry out executions and impose the death penalty even on women
So you are NOT a liberal who opposes the death penalty according to your own words... yet the USA is now in the same league as Iran for imposing the death penalty "EVEN ON WOMEN"
Of course, the above are just the most flat out over examples, in every single sentence you refer to her as "the woman" and "killed" instead of executed. But all I need to do is point out that you flat out say you do not oppose the death penalty, you DO oppose its application to women. Hence women are not "real people", they are pets to be kept by men for child bearing and sex in your opinion... property that should not be executed if it misbehaves.
Thanks for being so insulting and condescending about it (the whole world bays).
That case had NOTHING to do with her gender. It has to do with the fact that the only evidence against her was that she was tortured until she signed a confession. Anyone will sign a confession to anything under torture... thats how the the medieval witch trials happened...
Here is another example: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter3.html
McCain slowly wrote, "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors."
He would never forgive himself.
"I had learned what we all learned over there," he would write later. "Every man has a breaking point. I had reached mine."
Because I am NOT a sexist or a bigot, I do not care what race or gender you are... A confession signed under torture is meaningless. It means you broke, not that you committed whatever the confession says.
BTW. Most cases of Iranian executions are ridiculously wrong. Women are executed for adultery via stoning, while men are not, and stoning is a brutal execution method, and adultery doesn't warrant execution. Iran also executes political dissidents for speaking out against it. Iran is simply not in any way comparable to the USA.
Excellent points, but I am pretty sure this isn't the execution he is talking about... you are referring to the woman (who was probably raped, but in sharia law rape isn't a crime) and was executed via stoning for "adultery"...
I think he was talking about a different woman who was executed in Iran for supposedly murdering her husband... but the only evidence they had was that they tortured her until she signed a confession...
He is also making the mistake of lumping people together... I don't know who is "the world" that was "baying at how iran dares execute a woman"... but he seems to think that if he shows how other people are as misogynistic as him he will be off the hook for his misogynistic views. News flash, there ARE other misogynistic people out there who think a woman should not be held responsible for crimes that men are because women are not real people. But WE who protest it here (aka, me, Dr Guy, and a few others) aren't those people...
you show me a quote of ME doing it and you will prove that I am a misogynist and a hypocrite, you show me others that do it, and all I have to say is "so what" and "how does it get you off the hook"?
Ah, thank you. My mistake. I can see how torture is now equated with evidence. I guess Bahu, you must now support torture as a viable interrogation method? Please let Eric Holder know as he is chasing phantoms and I am sure would love to be told there is no need since the world now endorses it as a means of obtaining information in a crime.
He pretty busy chasing Christie down for 2000 bucks and the moment, can't expect him to do something trivial like murder, terrorism, or voter intimidation.
News flash, there ARE other misogynistic people out there who think a woman should not be held responsible for crimes that men are because women are not real people.
But WE who protest it here (aka, me, Dr Guy, and a few others) aren't those people...
Why do you assume that the Itranian woman was tortured does that not indicate a bias. Further she was found guilty of murder in the same manner in which the woman that we are discussing. My point is that the actual killer escaped with a lighjter sentence.
There is no mysogny here as I am only saying that the woman was not as culpable as the man who actully killed her husband. Now you judge who is biased against women.
In all these extensive interventions, I have been attacked on assumptions that are just not true. I have stated very clearly in my post itself that she is guilty but that she had limited intellectual and mental ability and that mitigating circumstance should hve been considered. Second, the mysogny angle is rather strange. If so I should have welcomed the death peanlty and make it appear that she was more guilty than Rodney who actually killed the two. I have not done so. Third, USA kicked up the big row over the Iranian woman who also stnds accused of having her husband murdered by her married lover. Third, to the best of my knowledge the Iranians have not carried out the execution thereby demonstrating a degree of concern for public/world opinion. As for the claim that the Iranian woman was tortured, even Amnesty International has not made that outrageous claim.
Kindly do not bring Mccain into the peicture. He was a PoW and he was a geniunely brave man and his life story is as inspirational as it is exemplary. Now what does McCain have to do with the case that is being discussed. This example does not"prove" that the Irarian woman was "tortured" and the breaking point hypothesis pro offered.
we now have two seperate issues...
First, the issue of WHICH Iranian woman are you specifically referring to? please NAME HER so we can discuss this more clearly.
Second, you claim that gender is no issue but in this post https://forums.joeuser.com/399009/page/3/#2821463
I show otherwise, you clearly stated that you are NOT against the death penalty itself, you are against applying it to women. Give us one good reason why women should NOT be treated equally by the law, or rescind your original statements and admit they were wrong. There is nothing wrong with that, debates are to teach and to learn, not to "win". I often admit my original opinion on something was proven wrong and change it to fit new evidence, this is a GOOD thing. So please, go ahead and do the same. your options are:
1. Say that there is nothing wrong with executing either gender if they committed a crime deserving an execution.
2. Say that the death penalty is wrong, regardless of gender, and be equally appalled by it when applied to men, and stop painting this is a women's right issue.
3. Come up with a plausible explanation as to why women should be treated as sub human (I don't think its possible to make such an argument plausible, but you can try)
4. Come up with a plausible explanation as how your words were taken out of context and didn't mean what you said. (I seriously doubt that since you were pretty clear and straightforward)
3 and 4 are far out there, try to stick to 1 or 2.
Same manner? Please, educate us on the evidence and how it was obtained. Do so, or shut up. Clearly you are not as familiar with the Iranian case as you would like to believe.
A tiger is a tiger and a jackal is a jackal.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
