(Close Window)
Topic: Woman Executed
Message: Posted by: irossall (Sep 24, 2010 09:44AM)
Can someone explain to me why we (yes, WE. We ARE the Government) Executed a Woman who did not kill anyone, yet we gave Life to the two guys who actualy did the dirty deed. I just don't get it.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Sep 24, 2010 10:29AM)
She masterminded the operation to kill two people and hired the two people to do it. She was the proximate cause, much like Charles Manson masterminded everything, but didn't kill anyone...perhaps a bad example because he's not on death row - but that's California, which is a different place altogether.

With that, I'm going to leave the thread now because these Capital Punishment discussions never go amiably.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 24, 2010 10:33AM)
Oh boy.
Message: Posted by: AsL (Sep 24, 2010 11:02AM)
Could somebody post a link for those that are less up-to-date with current events...like myself? TIA.
Message: Posted by: AsL (Sep 24, 2010 11:03AM)
I'm assuming the VA woman is the person being discussed...
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 24, 2010 11:08AM)
No one can explain it to you. The death penalty is barbaric.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 24, 2010 11:14AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 12:02, AsL wrote:
Could somebody post a link for those that are less up-to-date with current events...like myself? TIA.
[/quote]
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/23/womans-execution-nears-virginia/?test=latestnews

It's probably worth reading the story to get the background / details. It's a little complicated. Also, one of the killers committed suicide in 2006.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 24, 2010 11:33AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 12:08, kcg5 wrote:
No one can explain it to you. The death penalty is barbaric.
[/quote]

Ditto
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Sep 24, 2010 12:06PM)
At an earlier behind closed doors trial,judge Teresa Lewis,meted out the death penalty to two innocent people.
Apparently she wholeheartedly agreed with the death penalty.Even when no crime was committed.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Lyle (Sep 24, 2010 12:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 12:08, kcg5 wrote:
No one can explain it to you. The death penalty is barbaric.
[/quote]


[quote]
On 2010-09-24 12:33, gdw wrote:

Ditto
[/quote]

You guys wouldn't last long out here in Texas. We've fried people for less...
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 24, 2010 12:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 13:06, Ray Tupper. wrote:
At an earlier behind closed doors trial,judge Teresa Lewis,meted out the death penalty to two innocent people.
Apparently she wholeheartedly agreed with the death penalty.Even when no crime was committed.
[/quote]

Yeah, so that makes it ok to do it to her? Do we really base our morality on what others do and think?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 24, 2010 01:46PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 10:44, irossall wrote:
Can someone explain to me why we (yes, WE. We ARE the Government) Executed a Woman who did not kill anyone, yet we gave Life to the two guys who actualy did the dirty deed. I just don't get it.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]
You probably already know this, but for others who may not see the same discrepancy:

(From the FOXNews link I posted)

"The Lewis execution stirred an unusual amount of attention because of her gender, claims she lacked the intelligence to mastermind the killings and the post-conviction emergence of defense evidence that one of the triggermen manipulated her."

Another links notes:

"Her supporters never said Lewis was innocent or that she shouldn't be punished. But they said she did not deserve to die because she was borderline mentally retarded, with the intellectual ability of about a 13-year-old, and was manipulated by a smarter conspirator. It was wrong for her to be sentenced to death, they said, when the two men who fired the shots received life terms."

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/09/teresa-lewis-put-death-murders-husband-stepson

If it is as these stories say, then perhaps she lacked a good enough lawyer.

And I wonder what the actual post-conviction defense evidence was?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 24, 2010 05:19PM)
I think it is important to get the message out to women, inparticularly my wife, that it is WRONG to have your husband killed, just plain wrong.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2010 05:22PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 12:08, kcg5 wrote:
No one can explain it to you. The death penalty is barbaric.
[/quote]
Yea gotta say I am not a fan either. Too much "ick" on it for me.

Texas has trie to speed the process along as much as possible of late.
Message: Posted by: Brian Proctor (Sep 25, 2010 12:42AM)
She had it coming. Her peers decided she was wicked enough to have her life snuffed like she had her family members. You don't want to be executed, don't have your family killed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 25, 2010 12:48AM)
What about strangers?
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Sep 25, 2010 01:18AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-25 01:42, Brian Proctor wrote:
She had it coming. Her peers decided she was wicked enough to have her life snuffed like she had her family members. You don't want to be executed, don't have your family killed.
[/quote]

Exactly.

To Santa that goes for strangers too. If one doesn't want to pay the price they have to face once they have committed such crime they shouldn't do it. It doesn't matter what the person's mental status of the person that commits the crime at the time it takes place either.

But I know you don't agree with death sentences but that's o.k. that's not a strike against you. It's your opinion which you are very entitled too.

I'm glad they did it to her. Thankfully the Gov wasn't a wimpy one.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 25, 2010 02:02AM)
I'd like to know how borderline she is.
The fact is that the courts have upheld the execution of mentally retarded individuals as unconstitutional under the 8th amendment.
Their inability to comprehend the nature and purpose of their punishment undermines the retributive aspects as well.
The most widely accepted IQ score used for mental retardation diagnosis is the DSM standard of 70. The problem is that IQ tests aren't all that accurate.
So if she's really borderline then that's getting into pretty sensitive territory, constitutionally speaking.
That all varies by state, as with pretty much all legal discussion, but these are the most common definitions.
On a personal level, I am against the death penalty as well. My main reason isn't that I don't think killers should be punished though, it's that there is a historical precedent of executed individuals later being found innocent of the crime for which they were killed. That means that the state has murdered innocent people. It's a fact. I feel that if we execute one innocent person then that's one too many.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 25, 2010 02:05AM)
Anyone who wants to review that 8th amendment business can research "Atkins v Virginia."
We had to study a looooooooooot of these cases in my forensic psych classes.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Congreave (Sep 25, 2010 02:08AM)
What I don't understand is why you would want to be a witness, I am sure that the family are upset, but why would you want to watch her being put to death (shudder)?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 25, 2010 03:27AM)
Ah, the ol' reliable capital punishment thread.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 25, 2010 04:54PM)
I am shocked it is still here.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 25, 2010 04:56PM)
I am in favor of women who have their husbands killed executed.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Sep 25, 2010 06:10PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 13:36, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-24 13:06, Ray Tupper. wrote:
At an earlier behind closed doors trial,judge Teresa Lewis,meted out the death penalty to two innocent people.
Apparently she wholeheartedly agreed with the death penalty.Even when no crime was committed.
[/quote]

Yeah, so that makes it ok to do it to her? Do we really base our morality on what others do and think?
[/quote]
No "we" don't.
Which is why I don't base my morals on what "you" think and "you" do.
To each his own.
Living and dying and swords and such.
Ray.
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Sep 25, 2010 06:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-25 03:02, critter wrote:
I'd like to know how borderline she is.
[/quote]

WAS!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 26, 2010 02:23AM)
Current chance of recidivism: 0.00%
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 26, 2010 04:39AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-25 01:42, Brian Proctor wrote:
She had it coming. Her peers decided she was wicked enough to have her life snuffed like she had her family members. You don't want to be executed, don't have your family killed.
[/quote]
Hear hear.
Message: Posted by: Markymark (Sep 26, 2010 05:37AM)
Problem is the death penalty does'nt seem to work!
It should do but it does'nt seem to stop a criminal determined to kill.
And if Iran and China do it maybe we should'nt!

[Anyone hear about the Linda Carty case?]
Message: Posted by: rossmacrae (Sep 26, 2010 05:55AM)
I despise capital punishment.

She deserved it.

Read all the details of her crime and see why.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2010 08:44AM)
The old art of having someone killed by ones servant, which leaves the master free from prosecution, is an art she obviously did not practice very well.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 26, 2010 10:42AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 06:37, Markymark wrote:
Problem is the death penalty does'nt seem to work!
It should do but it does'nt seem to stop a criminal determined to kill.
And if Iran and China do it maybe we should'nt!

[Anyone hear about the Linda Carty case?]
[/quote]

Not to pick nits, but this is absolutely wrong. I don't care how determined John Wayne Gacey is to kill, he will not do it any more. As Lobo points out above with his post.

In fact the best thing that it DOES is to stop people from killing again. I am not making an arguement for or against mind you, but to say it does not work is just wrong. To say it may not stop someone ELSE from killing is probably true.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 26, 2010 10:52AM)
Life in prison with no chance of parole also stops killers from killing again......the state doesn't have to kill them in order to stop them.......there is a second choice available.

But oh that revenge tastes sweet.

Regardless of my personal opinion, I live in a country where the death penalty has been abolished for a few decades now.......and for the most part, we don't miss it.
There's always some case (usually involving kids) where folks go into revenge mode, and wish the death penalty could be brought back for [i]just this one case[/i].......but overall, nobody really pines for its return.

I think the argument goes somewhat off the rails when folks try to balance the concept of somebody doing something horrible to somebody else, and therefore must formally have something horrible done to them...........with the possibility of making an error, and executing an innocent person.

Folks [b]do[/b] realize (don't they) that there have been quite a few "mistaken" executions?
Folks proven innocent, after they've had the government murder them in cold blood.

Aside from the somewhat distasteful concept of formalizing the murder of another human being,
the lingering possibility that innocent people could be (and have been) executed seems to indicate that the process is flawed enough to suggest ending it.

Of course abolishment of the death penalty won't happen in the States, there's no support for the concept.
Alluded to above, places like Texas simply accept the risk of killing an innocent person along with the many guilty ones they kill each year as part of the cost of doing business.

I guess the bottom line is, as long as judges are human, and prone to errors.......and as long as juries can only render their [i]best guess[/i] in light of the evidence presented for a conviction..........it will remain a fatally flawed (and fatal) system of justice.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 26, 2010 11:34AM)
I am not sure I know that a person who should not have been executed has been. I hear the claim made, but I never see it backed up.

I do know that life in prison will stop people from killing. No doubt. I am sorry if I implied otherwise. I certainly did not mean to. I was simply saying that the idea of it not being a way to stop someone from killing was just wrong.

I am not certain it is the job of a government to kill its constituants. Yes the process is flawed. It must be for it is administered by human beings. This is also a pretty good arguement against it.

I don't want to take a hard fast position either way but this is definately a case where each side seems to have a point.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 26, 2010 11:53AM)
Danny, I have an opinion like most.........but don't have any answers.

In my neck of the woods we've had this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson

and more recently, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton

If you were to ask me, I (like most folks here on the Coast) would say quite clearly that both men deserve to be executed.........I'd pull the handle for either of them.

Of course.........I've just rebutted my entire post above.

No easy answers to be found within this topic.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 26, 2010 12:46PM)
Life in prison will not stop a murderer from killing . . . in prison. And "life in prison" rarely means just that anymore. Now that the Europeans have ended capital punishment, there is a group started up in France agitating to end life imprisonment as too cruel . . . Honestly there are people who think that the criminals are the victims and that their victims somehow deserved to be victimized . . . It seems to me that failing to execute deliberate, first-degree murderers shows disrespect of the lives of their victims . . . Capital punishment is not really punishment, and it is certainly not revenge . . . When the community accepts responsibility to remove from this world a first-degree murderer, the traditional cycle of revenge is short-circuited . . .

The apparent leniency towards crime that we see in Scandinavia seems to me to be an interesting outgrowth of their traditional law . . . if you read the Icelandic Sagas, now available in an excellent Penguin translation, you can see how a society evolved without written laws and without any government at all . . . murders were committed, and every summer a gathering of all of the people was held, called the Thing . . . at the thing, both parties to the dispute would argue their cases, and the elders and leaders of the people would make a decision . . . often decided on the basis of which side in the dispute could muster the most powerful support . . . in any event, the punishment for murder was outlawry, meaning that the "convicted" man was given a chance to get out of the country and go somewhere else . . . with the provision that if he overstayed his preparation-time, anyone could kill him, plunder his possessions, and there would be no retribution . . . Reading the Sagas gives the impression of a violent culture dominated by willful men who were trained to be irascible from an early age . . . and yet I think Iceland has evolved, after 1,000 years of Christianity perhaps, into a rather nonviolent place where major violent crime is practically unknown . . .

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2010 01:40PM)
Yes all criminals should be executed for any crime whatsoever especially those who do not seem to love the dear leader for they are the scum of the earth.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 26, 2010 02:27PM)
Well, Tommy, that's how the socialists usually play it, but that's not what most of the folks here are talking about. The case that prompted this discussion was not "any crime whatsoever," nor failing to "love the dear leader," but recruiting with money and sexual favors two villains to carry out the cold-blooded, premeditated murder of her husband and his son. Which most folks here, even if they object to the death penalty, recognize to be a truly heinous crime. You don't see it that way?

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 26, 2010 03:10PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 13:46, Woland wrote:

yet I think Iceland has evolved, after 1,000 years of Christianity perhaps, into a rather nonviolent place where major violent crime is practically unknown . . .

Woland
[/quote]
Perhaps. Then again, the woman who was executed being discussed in this thread was a devout Christian who attended Church services two nights a week.

So perhaps the nonviolence in Iceland has more to do with Iceland's relatively homogeneous population? Or its strict gun laws? Or its socialist traditions / institutions?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 26, 2010 03:27PM)
Balducci,

The evolution of the Icelandic character is an interesting phenomenon that may admit many interpretations. It probably took a long time. One factor was the imposition of an actual government, first by the Danes, and then by the Norwegians, if I am not mistaken. There may be many reasons.

That being said, I'm not aware that the imposition of socialism has reduced violence and criminality anywhere else in the world.

Respectfully submitted,

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 26, 2010 04:01PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 16:27, Woland wrote:
Balducci,

The evolution of the Icelandic character is an interesting phenomenon that may admit many interpretations. It probably took a long time. One factor was the imposition of an actual government, first by the Danes, and then by the Norwegians, if I am not mistaken. There may be many reasons.

That being said, I'm not aware that the imposition of socialism has reduced violence and criminality anywhere else in the world.

Respectfully submitted,

Woland
[/quote]
A number of countries with socialist traditions and institutions have remarkably low levels of violence. E.g., Canada.

However, I think that "imposition of socialism" (your words) is something different than what I mentioned, i.e., a country freely electing to have some socialist traditions / institutions.

I do agree with your larger point that there are many interpretations and reasons as to why Iceland evolved as it did. Indeed, that is why I cited several other possible explanations, as you mentioned only the one in your earlier post.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2010 04:08PM)
Alright so we can dole out physical mutilation in proportion to the crime. Ranging from hands to heads being loped off.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 26, 2010 06:16PM)
There are places in this world where that is in fact the law.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Sep 26, 2010 06:39PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 16:10, balducci wrote:

Perhaps. Then again, the woman who was executed being discussed in this thread was a devout Christian who attended Church services two nights a week.
[/quote]

From the article linked on page 1 of this thread:

***But by her own admission, Lewis' life has been marked by outrageous bouts of sex and betrayal even as she hewed to the trappings of Christianity.

"I was doing drugs, stealing, lying and having several affairs during my marriages," Lewis wrote in a statement that was read at a prison religious service in August. "I went to church every Sunday, Friday and revivals but guess what? I didn't open my Bible at home, only when I was at church."***

Kinda like those who pray WITH you on Sunday then pray ON you the rest of the week!

I always love the Born Again in prison plea! What was the old saying during war, there are no atheists in a fox hole during a bombing (or something to that effect)?

I will not put my views on Capital Punishment in an open forum but I will state that this broad IMO was real scum!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2010 07:02PM)
Such as the USA. Where physical mutilation is praticed as a form of punishment. Which you advocate.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 26, 2010 07:11PM)
Tommy,

I do not advocate physical mutilation as a form of punishment.

Neither is physical mutilation as a form of punishment practiced in the USA, as far as I know.

What are you talking about?

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2010 07:36PM)
The death penalty execution is a form of physical mutilation which results in death.
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Sep 26, 2010 09:28PM)
***Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.***
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 26, 2010 10:14PM)
Thanks, Mickey, you beat me to it.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 26, 2010 10:18PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 20:02, tommy wrote:
Such as the USA. Where physical mutilation is praticed as a form of punishment. Which you advocate.
[/quote]
USA does not practice mutilation as punishment, but several nations do.... but Tommy doesn't care about those nations, they're no fun to criticize.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 26, 2010 10:57PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 11:52, silverking wrote:
Life in prison with no chance of parole also stops killers from killing again......the state doesn't have to kill them in order to stop them.......there is a second choice available.
[/quote]

This is not true; prisoners serving life sentences have killed others (guards and/or other prisoners) while in prison or after having escaped.

Moreover, the fact that the death penalty is on the table, even though a tiny percentage of murderers receive it as a sentence, helps secure life without parole sentences via plea bargains; if life without parole were the max possible sentence, fewer defendants would receive it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 26, 2010 11:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 23:18, magicfish wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-26 20:02, tommy wrote:
Such as the USA. Where physical mutilation is praticed as a form of punishment. Which you advocate.
[/quote]
USA does not practice mutilation as punishment, but several nations do.... but Tommy doesn't care about those nations, they're no fun to criticize.
[/quote]

Don't mind Tommy; he also thinks God wants him to cheat at poker.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 26, 2010 11:21PM)
My friend went to prison for drugs and killed at least three (last I heard) convicts who thought they could give him a hard time. So, sometimes a non killer will become a killer by going to prison.

I still am not a death penalty fan, then again I'm a lefty.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 26, 2010 11:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 00:21, MagicSanta wrote:
My friend went to prison for drugs and killed at least three (last I heard) convicts who thought they could give him a hard time. So, sometimes a non killer will become a killer by going to prison.

I still am not a death penalty fan, then again I'm a lefty.
[/quote]

Of all of the myriad aims of the criminal justice system, I think it's safe to say it's least successful at rehabilitation.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 26, 2010 11:46PM)
Doesn't matter in his case....I doubt they'll be letting him out. Besides, he's very high up in his...uh....club.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 27, 2010 12:01AM)
Its easy for some to say she was borderline retarded, (we don't use that word in canada) but if she was retarded, she would not be criminally responsible. Here's the point. She wasn't retarded- at all. She knew what she was doing was wrong, she knew the consequences, she did it anyway. She wanted them dead so she plotted their murder. She was found guilty by a jury of her peers of first degree murder, which is punishable by death. That's the law. Guess what? She didn't care....... And now she's dead. Don't wanna die? Don't murder people- fairly simple and quite logical.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 27, 2010 12:19AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 01:01, magicfish wrote:

Its easy for some to say she was borderline retarded, (we don't use that word in canada) but if she was retarded, she would not be criminally responsible. Here's the point. She wasn't retarded- at all.
[/quote]
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are confusing mentally retarded with criminally insane. As of 2001 anyway, twenty-five U.S. states still permitted the execution of offenders with mental retardation:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/27

Apparently the woman (Lewis) tested as borderline mentally retarded.

Also, one of the killers (post-conviction) said that he duped and used the woman:

http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2010/09/virginia-mentally-disabled-woman-teresa.html

---
In 2003, Lewis pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death by a judge who called her "the head of this serpent." One shooter, Rodney Fuller, made a deal with prosecutors in return for a life sentence. The judge sentenced Shallenberger to life, saying that was only fair because of Fuller's deal.

But Shallenberger, who dreamed of becoming a mob hit man, later told a former girlfriend in a letter that he had used Lewis because he wanted money to go to New York and become a drug dealer. He committed suicide in prison.
---
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 27, 2010 12:28AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 01:19, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 01:01, magicfish wrote:

Its easy for some to say she was borderline retarded, (we don't use that word in canada) but if she was retarded, she would not be criminally responsible. Here's the point. She wasn't retarded- at all.
[/quote]
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are confusing mentally retarded with criminally insane. As of 2001 anyway, twenty-five U.S. states still permitted the execution of offenders with mental retardation:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/27

Apparently the woman (Lewis) tested as borderline mentally retarded.

Also, one of the killers (post-conviction) said that he duped and used the woman:

http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2010/09/virginia-mentally-disabled-woman-teresa.html

---
In 2003, Lewis pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death by a judge who called her "the head of this serpent." One shooter, Rodney Fuller, made a deal with prosecutors in return for a life sentence. The judge sentenced Shallenberger to life, saying that was only fair because of Fuller's deal.

But Shallenberger, who dreamed of becoming a mob hit man, later told a former girlfriend in a letter that he had used Lewis because he wanted money to go to New York and become a drug dealer. He committed suicide in prison.
---
[/quote]

Per Atkins vs. Virginia (2002), this is out of date; any such statutes have been struck down as unconstitutional. The defendant has the burden of proof, and there are specific evidentiary findings that are required (i.e. onset before age 18, IQ at least 2 standard deviations below the mean...)

You are correct that the language that Magicfish was citing was a different standard (although the rationale is similar; a lower degree of moral culpability is imputed to various members of society, e.g. children, the mentally ill, and the mentally retarded).
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 27, 2010 12:39AM)
Lobo, so what do you think happened in this Lewis case? Had you been following it? If she did test borderline mentally retarded, as numerous reports seem to claim, how was she ever sentenced to be executed?

Never mind, I just found the answer:

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/2010_09_22_teresa_lewis_execution

"With an IQ score of just 72, Lewis has the intellectual ability of a 13 year old. If her IQ score had been two points lower, the U.S. Supreme Court would have deemed her execution unconstitutionally ‘cruel and unusual’. Instead, barring a last-minute stay from the Supreme Court, Lewis will become the first woman to be executed in Virginia for nearly a century."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 27, 2010 12:50AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 01:39, balducci wrote:
Lobo, so what do you think happened in this Lewis case? Had you been following it? If she did test borderline mentally retarded, as numerous reports seem to claim, how was she ever sentenced to be executed?

Never mind, I just found the answer:

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/2010_09_22_teresa_lewis_execution

"With an IQ score of just 72, Lewis has the intellectual ability of a 13 year old. If her IQ score had been two points lower, the U.S. Supreme Court would have deemed her execution unconstitutionally ‘cruel and unusual’. Instead, barring a last-minute stay from the Supreme Court, Lewis will become the first woman to be executed in Virginia for nearly a century."
[/quote]

Assuming the 72 is accurate, and is on a standardized test with a standard deviation of 15, that would be enough to disqualify the attempted defense; the article may also be an oversimplification, though. There are also specific adaptive deficits (e.g. communication) that must be shown to have presented before 18. The framework appears designed to help ensure that you can't just go out and buy a psychologist after you've been arrested.

Atkins v. Virginia is interesting reading in a landmark case (actually, a number of the capital punishment decisions make good reading, tracing the development of the law through the years).
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Sep 27, 2010 01:04AM)
Pretty sharp "13 yr old" then IMO! She was able to put it together that in order for her to benefit from her step sons life insurance benefits she would have to off BOTH the step son and then the husband who was sole beneficiary of the policy in order for her to end up with the money via community property laws!

She also used her own 16 year old daughter to seal the deal by turning her out to one of the hired guns! Shall we assume she was at least smarter than the daughter or was the daughter of even lower IQ? *This is really quite irrelevant but I thought it would make her (Lewis) out to be an even bigger scumbag!*

Kids these days, they're just smarter than we give em credit for! ;)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 27, 2010 03:30AM)
To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts to deprive of a limb or other essential part. Lopping an hand off or stretching a neck or frying somebody’s brain is an act of physical mutilation, whether or not it results in death, as death is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a body has been mutilated. One can mutilate a dead body. The executioner in the USA mutilates the body one way or another. The mutilation is so designed to result in death. One could design mutilation of body as a punishment to lesser degree’s to fit the bill. Such as lopping off a hand for not paying tax or frying a brain for murder. Its just the same idea when all said and done. The USA also uses torture on the accused to make him confess and get information from him, so I don’t see why the Americans are so squeamish about lopping a hand off or whatever.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 27, 2010 09:06AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 01:19, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 01:01, magicfish wrote:

Its easy for some to say she was borderline retarded, (we don't use that word in canada) but if she was retarded, she would not be criminally responsible. Here's the point. She wasn't retarded- at all.
[/quote]
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are confusing mentally retarded with criminally insane. As of 2001 anyway, twenty-five U.S. states still permitted the execution of offenders with mental retardation:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/27

Apparently the woman (Lewis) tested as borderline mentally retarded.

Also, one of the killers (post-conviction) said that he duped and used the woman:

http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2010/09/virginia-mentally-disabled-woman-teresa.html

---
In 2003, Lewis pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death by a judge who called her "the head of this serpent." One shooter, Rodney Fuller, made a deal with prosecutors in return for a life sentence. The judge sentenced Shallenberger to life, saying that was only fair because of Fuller's deal.

But Shallenberger, who dreamed of becoming a mob hit man, later told a former girlfriend in a letter that he had used Lewis because he wanted money to go to New York and become a drug dealer. He committed suicide in prison.
---
[/quote]
Well for one, borderline is a lot different than mentally disabled. Two, I'm no lawyer either, but even I could punch holes in the credibility of the post trial testimony of a hired killer.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 27, 2010 09:12AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-27 04:30, tommy wrote:
To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts to deprive of a limb or other essential part. Lopping an hand off or stretching a neck or frying somebody’s brain is an act of physical mutilation, whether or not it results in death, as death is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a body has been mutilated. One can mutilate a dead body. The executioner in the USA mutilates the body one way or another. The mutilation is so designed to result in death. One could design mutilation of body as a punishment to lesser degree’s to fit the bill. Such as lopping off a hand for not paying tax or frying a brain for murder. Its just the same idea when all said and done. The USA also uses torture on the accused to make him confess and get information from him, so I don’t see why the Americans are so squeamish about lopping a hand off or whatever.
[/quote]
Indeed, I mean why on earth would the great satan be squeamish about anything? Oh wait a minute, Bush is retired. Tommy, are you insinuating that the great Barack Obama is evil as well? Wow, that satan character sure can pick em. Where are the angels? Ooops nevermind, I see them now, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong , Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, yes, Tommy, I see them now.