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.
There was controversy at least in the UK. The issue was dicussed in most of the main UK presses, Radio, written and TV.
But there was no where near the amount of dicussion compared to the Iranian woman, and indeed the hassle that followed afterwards for her lawers and his family
I will take your word for it, but the links do not indicate a great deal of debate, just reporting of the news. Indeed, it may be as bad as it was with Teresa, but then until Bahu chimed in, I had not heard more than the normal amount of criticism of the "barbaric colonialists".
So now you're against equality for women?
comment addressed and who and with which evidence?
I am just a historian earning, like little Tommy Tucker, by singing in a University for my supper. You have made me the spokesperson for the world-- I do get the sarcasm, but really I do have apoint when I say that Lewis was less guilty than the person who pulled the trigger. And her IQ level makes her a case fit for diminished responsiblity.
I oppose her death not because she was a woman but because there were infirmities in the judicial process. Her lawyers failed her.
She failed herself. Even most children know right from wrong.
A judicial sentence is not mere moral posturing. No one doubts even for a moment that she did wrong and deserves to be punished. The question is the quantum of punishment. Did she deserve to die for being a mere accessory to the crime while the man who pulled the trigger escaped with a life sentence.
Without her compliance, no crime would have occurred. Eye for an eye... if premeditated, sounds reasonable to me. As others have said, all involved should have got the same, but that's my opinion. The jury saw different. I do truly wish in the clear cut cases of murder the process can be hastened. We are wasting too much time and effort on known, murderous criminals, just to pad some lawyers bank account, to my liking. Nine bullets and a blank are much cheaper than the current process too.
Amen.
These death row inmate who have subsequently been released probably disagree with the hastening of the process. I would also image that there were a number of people killed who deserved the process being more though.
1973.
1974
1975.
1976
1977.
1978.
1979.
1980
1981
1982
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
You've been a busy bee Basmas
After reading all this, I have to wonder why people think that her IQ test was a reliable way of telling her mental ability. The IQ test was administered as part of her hearing. Gee...I can't imagine why it turned out so low.
If she was retarded, how was she legally able to be married?
Sorry, anyone that can have their husband and step-son shot for money needs to be out of society.
I also wonder why people aren't talking about the two men that committed the crime. I mean, hey, she was only having sex with both of them and used that as a way to manipulate them into committing the crime. But, yeah, I can totally see why she should be in society.
I don't care the gender or the IQ (especially since the test was taken after she was arrested). She did the crime and she ended TWO people's lives who trusted her. The only "wrong" in this case is that the killers got off easy...though I'm not sure that being in jail with other lifers is "easy"...if you know what I mean
All well and good, unfortunately I was referring to clear cut cases of murder (such as the Ft. Hood and Connecticut family murderers come to mind). How long would you suggest they languish in the "system"? I never suggested anyone be put down on circumstantial evidence. Sorry but your research has no affect on my opinion, but while you're at it, why don't you look up how many criminals were released and killed again? Let's see which is larger. Perhaps you'd feel different if someone close to you were a victim on the killers second go round. Oh, that's right, for the most of the left only fetuses qualify.
[quote]If she was retarded, how was she legally able to be married? [/quote
]
Thank you for such a detailed reply. It shows very very clearly that you have a very good command over the material and I stand certainly informed by your reply. Thanks.
As I have already said I am not going into the debate on death penalty per se. The US Supreme Court is seizes of the matter and will pronounce on it in a few months time. I feel that death by lethal injection may be retained and electrocution and firing squad method may be found to be "cruel and unusual".
Marriage does not require an IQ test and if it did few will marry.
You are wrong Karma Girl. She was manipulated into being an accomplice by her lover who later killed himself.
Really memorable. This one of the rare occasions when you have agreed with a position that I have taken.
And who would decide which cases are 'clear cut'? Why should that one person have the power of life or death over somebody with no oversight? After all if there is oversight over which cases are clear cut or not then you will just get a completly different set of appeals. Also just try thinking this though - you would end up with 'guilty' 'not guilty' and 'clear cut'. If it is not 'clear cut' why are the guily being sent to be killed?
I never suggested anyone be put down on circumstantial evidence. Sorry but your research has no affect on my opinion, but while you're at it, why don't you look up how many criminals were released and killed again? Let's see which is larger. Perhaps you'd feel different if someone close to you were a victim on the killers second go round. Oh, that's right, for the most of the left only fetuses qualify.
???? What does the number of people released who later kill have anything to do this at all people have the right to appeal before the state kills them? Are you talking about people released on parole who kill, people who are released after being found NOT GUILTY of the crime they were jailed for later killing? People getting parole is a complety different issue and debate and even this womans case is not 'is she killed or is she released'.
Oh, that's right, for the most of the left only fetuses qualify.
An offesive comment which had no reason to be said, nothing to back it up and nothing to do with the issue(s) at hand,
I think I agreed with you once before, Bahu.
Once.
[/quote]
I gave two examples... seems pretty easy when a killing is witnessed by many, in broad day light or positively identified by a survivor, or even admitted to the crime. Wouldn't you think?
Where did I say I'd deny anyone their day in court? Let the jury decide. If it's death, there are degrees. Murder in the first degree is pretty clear cut IMO, so what's the issue? Not second, not third, not manslaughter. I'm not advocating the death penalty in the case of an accident, self defense, etc. If I walked up to you and put a gun barrel to your forehead, pulled the trigger, in the middle of the street on a sunny day, for no good reason other than to watch you die or take your wallet, I should expect the consequences for my actions and swiftly at that, not 20 years later after playing on some bleating heart liberal to save me from my fate.. Stop putting your own words between the lines and reading them out as liker they were implied.
Offensive to who? The people that openly condone that while sparing (adult) murderers? Of course it has a reason to be said. You champion the the guilty and ignore the innocent. A life is a life, we are talking guilty and innocent correct (3700 per day in the US alone if your interested, sorry no list of names for you http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html)? So, I'm not bothered one bit if you were offended. Are you bothered that I'm annoyed at the hypocrisy? I thought so.
Anyway. Here's are some stats for you, I'm sure they won't be as "good" for you because it is not in line with your thinking. All the same:
"Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Of the offenders with prior felony records, the study found that at the time of the new crime 18 percent were on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and 7 percent on parole.
The bureau also reported 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony."
I'm sure your list in a side by side comparison would pale next to 15 percent of the prison population even if only one 10th of a percent of the 15% were prior murders.
Slightly OT: Here's an interesting one (not murder specific, but repeat offenders) concerning Canada thought I'd pass it on.
http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun%20Repeat%20offender.htm
In the UK there were several cases of people convicted of IRA bombings who had 'confessed' to the crime and were later proved to be completly and utterly innocent.
As far as my understand of the USA legal system goes if somebody kills somebody by accident they will not be killed by the state.
Those cases I listed were (in the main) one's where a jury decided on the evidence shown to them to be guilty even though they were not and the legal system later proved they were not gulity.
People who were convicted of 2nd degree murder etc were not sentanced to death, that list is the people who were conviced of a captail crime and later proved NOT TO HAVE DONE IT.
Jury trials are not, and never will be, perfect and so they will always require appeal processes and the like. In the case of the state killing the defendents of course these appeals etc have to be done while the defendent is still alive.
Jurys can and will be wrong. People deserve appeals and that list of INNOCENT people who would otherwise have been delibartly killed by the state shows that the system of appeals etc that you appear to dislike save INNOCENT lives,
[quote]
You champion the the guilty and ignore the innocent.
[/quote}
where? where have I done either? The list I showed was of people shown to be NOT GUILTY, ie the INNOCENT.
What the hell does any of this have anything to do with abortion? Where has anything I have said even inpact on abortions? Or repeat offenders?
Lesson one. If you're not guilty don't say that you are, under any circumstance. A person that does this is probably trying to protect someone else from their fate. IMO these people deserve whatever befalls them too. They are obstructing justice, and if that includes murder, IMO they are as guilty as the person committing the act. I feel no remorse for these types.
True. I've no issue with this.
Then some degree of doubt must have existed, such as a single or no witness present. Care should be taken in those instances. Can you get in front of your keyboard and honestly write that there is a chance the Fort Hood shooter is innocent? This is specifically the type of case I'm speaking of for an expedited process "should the defendant be found guilty".
Agreed. There is an appeals process, but someone should be able to shed some degree of doubt. I don't agree with delay tactics to put off the inevitable and they cost the taxpayers money.
One and two just making a point on how people are dismissive on one for of killing (abortion) and against another (death penalty). As for repeat offenders I was referring to people that kill are released and kill again. I would say that is relevant to the discussion.
As for my "Champion" statement, if you are saying you are for the death penalty, then I stand corrected, otherwise I stand by my statement as that is my opinion (neither you or anyone else need agree, change nothing for me).
I think there has been a mix up here. Angli-Saxon common law makes a clear distinction between homicide with intent and homicide without express intent. In most counties the intent behind the killing will be established in order to award the capital punishment. In only the Middle East you have a situation where any killing even a trffic related death is punished bydeath. The real reason for thsi is that in the West the State took on the role as the primary settler of scores whereas in the Middle East the "family" clan" still have a say in doling out the punishment.
Many logical concepts of justice, such as the distinction between Premeditated Murder and Negligent Homicide, seem hard for those outside the 'West' to grasp.
You finally stated the obvious. Yet your article was not about the inhumanity of the death penalty itself, but about the inhumanity of putting a woman to death. When you segregate based upon gender - no matter the intent - you denigrate those who have that attribute. That was my original point and remains my contention with your proclamation.
Now you contradict yourself. if her diminished mental capacity was sufficient for her to get a lighter sentence, then it is sufficient for her to be spared any penalty as the diminished mental capacity is about the ability to discern right from wrong. if she has that capacity, then she should be punished in accordance with the laws of the society. if she does not, then she should not be punished. Sentencing is not about establishing guilt.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
