Georgia "Murder" Denied Appeal For Death Sentence

This is kinda political, but more just weird. In a country where we don't blame gun manufacturers for violence, rappers for gangs, breweries for drunk driving, and violent video games for school shootings; we're sentencing a woman to death because she convinced her lover to kill her husband. Her lover, the true murderer, merely serves life in prison.

Isn't it the one holding the murder weapon who's usually considered the most guilty?

Now maybe I could understand her increased level of guilt if she convinced someone who was mentally disabled or impaired to kill someone else, but barring that, I'd say if mentally capable, the guy who did the stabbing should be the one in the crosshairs. Don't you?

I mean, its not like she's leader of a terrorist organization or an enemy combatant. It's not like she's the ringleader of serial killer gang. All she did was say "hey sweety, kill my husband" and her boyfriend was crazy enough to follow through with it. Am I missing something?

.........

Maybe it's seen like the commanding officer being more responsible for ordering one of his guys to pull the trigger... dunno.

People who pay hitmen are also tried for murder. This is no different.

Just for the sake of argument: if she hadn't talked her BF into the murder, there would have been no murder. She provided the motive.

Oh I don't doubt that she should be tried for murder, but what I don't get is why she's getting a stiffer punishment than the guy who committed the murder.

I suspect it depends on how she convinced him, e.g. if she told him her husband was abusing her etc.

This guy never hurt anyone either:

He would be dead now if he hand not lucked out with California outlawing the death penalty.

I'm guessing he plea bargained to throw her under the bus.

In reply to The Hoff:

i believe that is the case here...

the district attorney is usually more willing to distribute successful lesser prosecutions against multiple parties rather than only get one fish in the net, i believe.

even if she avoided the death penalty, she will always be a murderer if convicted.

It just seem strange to me that you can murder someone, then point the finger at someone else who mentioned offhand how you should commit said murder, and let them get the harsher penalty.

I guess its how our court system work, allowing accomplices in crimes get varying degrees of sentencing depending on how much they ratted on one another.

well, the way you're saying it leaves you to be doubting her complicity level. I can't make that argument for you.

All i can say is that it doesn't come down to who or how much they ratted on one another, is the assurity of the DA that they will get multiple convictions out of the crime.

If they have a strong case against one and a weak case against another but still feel they are responsible, it makes no sense to accelerate full speed on one while the other goes free completely free.

My opinion about the death penalty is in constant flux. I'd hate to see an innocent man die for a crime that he did not commit. This woman was evil and made some very bad choices. It's messed up that her boyfriend will sit in jail for his actions, while she will be put to death. I think George Carlin had a great rant on the subject

Funny you should mention old George Carlin. Today as I labored away in my shop I had a series of his performances playing on YouTube in the background.

It amazes me how much I agreed with most of his points.

Will wrote: People who pay hitmen are also tried for murder. This is no different. Just for the sake of argument: if she hadn't talked her BF into the murder, there would have been no murder. She provided the motive.

and the accomplice in an armed robbery (where the one to be robbed defends and kills one of the robbers) can, and usually is charged with murder … not the victim that did the actual killing

read with some interest that the PRC has the highest rate of sentencing to death row of all the states …though they don't seem to ever pull the trigger and cut down on the death row population … thought it was interesting … when you consider that the deep south are the states usually being castigated for our death penalty policies

again, like the OP … not trying to flounder this thread/forum .. hoping it can stay this civil about such a divisive topic

""

PHeller wrote: Oh I don't doubt that she should be tried for murder, but what I don't get is why she's getting a stiffer punishment than the guy who committed the murder.

better lawyer

aircooled wrote: I suspect it depends on how she convinced him, e.g. if she told him her husband was abusing her etc. This guy never hurt anyone either: (pic of Charlie M.) He would be dead now if he hand not lucked out with California outlawing the death penalty.

Manson maimed at least one (Hinman) and left another for dead (Crowe), that we know of. He just wasn't charge with those. He was also on the scene for the LaBianca murders. Close enough.

too many variable in trials: better lawyer, different jury, different prosecutor, different lunch and different weather. I have seen baby murderer/rapist get life and spurned lover in 3-way triangle get death. Usually the result cannot be explained unless you were in the jury room.

PHeller wrote: It just seem strange to me that you can murder someone, then point the finger at someone else who mentioned offhand how you should commit said murder, and let them get the harsher penalty. I guess its how our court system work, allowing accomplices in crimes get varying degrees of sentencing depending on how much they ratted on one another.

I would imagine if she took a deal, she would be alive today.

Accept guilt, spend the rest of your life in prison, don't and risk the death penalty. Lawyer did a pretty bad job of advising her of the odds of getting choice two, apparently.

Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter.

Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth.

On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic?

Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me.

Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

In reply to mtn:

I strongly agree with your first point.

J.R.R. Tolkien via Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring said: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

If we eliminated the ~20 years on Death Row, and the resulting multiple appeal attempts, it would be cheaper than life in prison.

RealMiniParker wrote:

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

If we eliminated the ~20 years on Death Row, and the resulting multiple appeal attempts, it would be cheaper than life in prison.

Those multiple appeal attempts have exonerated multiple death row inmates who were innocent of the crime they were convicted for. So, yeah, we should do away with that and kill more innocent people.

They're in prison. Their lives are already over in there. Why do we need to take them off this earth? Does that make our world any better? Guess what--my life didn't change at all when Timothy McVey was executed. Same with John Wayne Gacy. They were already removed from society, removing them from the earth made zero change to my life, and zero change to yours.

RealMiniParker wrote:

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

If we eliminated the ~20 years on Death Row, and the resulting Constitutional Legal Rights, it would be cheaper than life in prison.

FTFY.

The death penalty is sold as a deterrent to murder. Doesn't seem to be working.

This is why it really doesn't bother me when a criminal is killed in a shootout with police. Saves a lot of taxpayer's money.