She was rescheduled for last night at 7 p.m., but the drugs to be used "appeared cloudy," and the execution was again postponed.
The CNN article almost seems to hint that the hand of God is intervening:
A petition saying the mother of three has turned her life around, even earning a theology degree while in prison, had garnered more than 40,000 signatures as of Monday morning...
"While incarcerated, she has been a pastoral presence to many, teaching, preaching and living a life of purpose," the petition states. "Kelly is a living testament to the possibility of change and the power of hope. She is an extraordinary example of the rehabilitation that the corrections system aims to produce."
Gissendaner's crime was, of course, murder. The victim was her husband, and her lover Gregory Owen performed the hands-on beating and stabbing. Gissendaner showed up at the scene as the murder was under way, stayed in her car a while, then got out to make sure he was dead. Owen confessed, implicating Gissendaner, and, from jail, Gissendaner attempted to hire somebody to testify falsely that he'd forced her to go to the scene. Owen and Gissendaner were each offered a life-in-prison plea deal, with an opportunity for parole after 25 years. Owen accepted. Gissendaner — after attempting to get rid of that part about waiting 25 years — went to trial.
According to her clemency appeal, her lead trial attorney, Edwin Wilson, said he thought the jury would not sentence her to death "because she was a woman and because she did not actually kill Doug. ... I should have pushed her to take the plea but did not because I thought we would get straight up life if she was convicted."
This was in Georgia, which had only executed a woman once in all of its history, and that was back in 1944. That woman was
Lena Baker, a black woman who shot and killed her white employer in what she described as self-defense:
The trial was presided over by Judge William "Two Gun" Worrill, who kept a pair of pistols on his judicial bench in plain view. The all-white, all-male jury convicted her by the end of the afternoon... On entering the execution chamber, Baker sat in the electric chair and said:
What I done, I did in self-defense, or I would have been killed myself. Where I was I could not overcome it. God has forgiven me. I have nothing against anyone. I picked cotton for Mr. Pritchett, and he has been good to me. I am ready to go. I am one in the number. I am ready to meet my God. I have a very strong conscience.
Posts
33 comments:
The only consistent factor I can identify distinguishing the murders we execute from those we don't is that the ones we execute all have bad lawyers.
Very true. We should make bad lawyer-ing a capital offense.
(Of course my suggestion is ridiculous and unproductive, nearly all of the details surrounding the death penalty are)
I have always said murder and rape crimes are the most difficult for lawyers.
Mistakes can be fatal.
Per the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/prosecutors-to-seek-death-penalty-in-murders-of-arab-american-students.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article&_r=0)
the prosecutor is seeking the death penalty against the Chapel Hill killer, which almost seems unsporting, as he's already confessed, so, near as I can tell, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel.
This deserves a "strangely early in the morning" tag.
Gissendaner. Not a common name, which immediately brings to mind Lee Gissendaner, who was a good college wide receiver and has been a scout for your Packers for 15 years.
“Sir, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.”
“If I were your husband I would take it.”
Mother of three. Hardly.
Those three also had a father. Had.
Since St. John Paul II, the Church has encouraged (and arguably imporsed, vel non) a standard by which to evaluate proposed executions. While "the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" where that "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor," where "non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." CCC2267; see EV56. Georgia has not carried its burden under that standard, and I therefore signed and urge others to do likewise. I frankly doubt that petitions do a lick of good, but what if it does?
Feminists shouldn't be resting until at least 50% of death penalty executions are female. Clearly a lot of patriarchal privilege exists within the confines of the jailhouse.
'While "the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" where that "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor," where "non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." '
Yuck. Does the Church have any interest in what the Bible has to say on the subject? The death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five books of Moses. (ht Dennis Prager)
Two words: abortion industry. They have a proven record of efficiently and humanely terminating over one million human lives annually in America alone. There is no need to duplicate capital punishment resources, unless the separation of abortion and murder is needed to sustain an abstraction of human life that relieves cognitive dissonance.
I refused a plea deal several years ago
when I was still quite naive
Well you said that we made such a pretty pair
And that you would never leave
But you gave away the things you loved by copping a plea
and one of them was me
I had some dreams,
they were clouds in my lethal injection...
clouds in my lethal injection,
That's my vein, you probably think this execution is about you
That's my vein, I'll bet you think this execution is about you
Don't you? don't you? don't you?
Put those drugs on a hot plate or other warming chamber and get er dun.
Of course if you used a rope or a firing squad, winter weather wouldn't interfere.
"these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person"
She harmed those "concrete conditions." She forfeited that "dignity."
Gissendaner... earned a theology degree while in prison... is ready to meet her God.
"the ones we execute all have bad lawyers" and good prosecutors and horrendous crimes.
Don't have the dough to pay for good lawyers, don't do the crime.
Good lawyers are those who know how to twist the evidence.
America is a better place. Ever imperfect, but a more perfect union.
I admit that I have a problem with the person who actually committed the murder getting a lesser sentence than the person who was nowhere near the scene of the crime. But when I ran the facts of the case past my wife she was very firm in her belief that a woman who instigated the murder of her husband deserves to die, even if she didn't do the actual killing.
That is a comfort to me.
Big Mike said...
That is a comfort to me.
Just wait. She'll be singing a different tune once she's standing in front of the jury.
Your site is very good ,
I am very happy if you can get acquainted with you
obat aborsi | jual obat aborsi | obat aborsi cytotec
penggugur kandungan | obat penggugur kandungan | obat penggugur janin
@Ignorance, my job is to see to it that that never happens. Flowers work surprisingly well. Chocolates when I'm supposed to know she's on a diet, not so well.
The only consistent factor I can identify distinguishing the murders we execute from those we don't is that the ones we execute all have bad lawyers.
Yes, well? That's the result of the Supreme Court inventing the extraconstitutional doctrine that you have to go through all sorts of special rigamarole in order to sentence someone to death, rather than making it an automatic penalty for certain crimes. That automatically throws out any consistency.
Just like in the "it costs too much" argument, the opponents of the death penalty invent absurdities in the administration of the death penalty, and then use the very absurdities they imposed as an argument to abolish the death penalty.
If she was prettier she would not have gotten the death penalty.
If liberals keep pushing euthanasia can they really be morally opposed to the death penalty?
Two words: abortion industry.
Who would have guessed that those would be your two words?
That's the result of the Supreme Court inventing the extraconstitutional doctrine that you have to go through all sorts of special rigamarole in order to sentence someone to death
The Constitution requires due process for executions. "Due process" is not defined in the Constitution.
Obviously the process required for an execution will be an "extraconstitutional" one. The alternative is to never execute anyone at all.
"the ones we execute all have bad lawyers" and good prosecutors and horrendous crimes.
Depends on your definition of 'good prosecutors'. With the range of immoral and illegal proprietorial behavior in the news, I'd think a bad (i.e., evil rather than incompetent) prosecutor is more likely to get you on death row than good.
MikeR said...
"Yuck. Does the Church have any interest in what the Bible has to say on the subject? The death penalty for murder is the only law repeated in all five books of Moses. (ht Dennis Prager)"
*facepalm*
I support the death penalty, but this is just a silly argument to make to a Christian of any flavor. OT law doesn't apply -- the Vatican also doesn't ban bacon double cheeseburgers, despite the clear, strong OT prohibitions.
In the NT we've got Jesus personally intervening at an execution telling us not to cast the first stone. And that's before you start to ponder his own execution...
I disagree with the Catholic Church's position on this issue, but they are on really, really strong Biblical grounds.
Bob R said...
"The only consistent factor I can identify distinguishing the murders we execute from those we don't is that the ones we execute all have bad lawyers."
One other fact -- they tend to be people who refused to plea bargain.
Revenant:
Yes, I know, your two words are pro and choice.
That said, why not the abortion industry? They have a proven record of efficiently and "humanely" terminating human life through decapitation, dismemberment, lethal injection, and other methods.
Why not use their services to carry out capital execution of individuals with cause and following due process?
Not only would they use proven, humane methods to terminate human life, but it would be conducted in the privacy of a clinic.
I understand the sincere need for the abortion industry and its consumers to propagate the emotionally appealing abstraction of a human life process and character, but why limit it to arbitrarily describe clumps of cells in a woman's womb?
clint:
The NT does not exist independent of the OT. The two must be reconciled in order to know their philosophy. So, murder of a murderer is justified following due process. The statement to "not cast the first stone" is advisory. It is to inform people that they should expect a reciprocal action, but it does not preclude acting in self-defense.
n.n said...
"The NT does not exist independent of the OT. The two must be reconciled in order to know their philosophy."
That's a dazzling insight; you should immediately call the Vatican. I'm sure that St. John Paul just completely overlooked that. ;)
(Confessedly, all kidding aside, you might need to explain some of the larger words to Francis, such as "philosophy," "reconcile," and "must." They're a little above his grade level.)
"So, murder of a murderer is justified following due process."
It can be justified. What John Paul recognized is that the inherent dignity of each human life, from conception until natural death, precludes thoughtless, habitual, or automatic recourse to the taking of a life when alternatives are available.
Regarding the "abortion industry" and its supposedly efficient and humane means of execution: as I understand it (in late term abortions) the fetus head is evacuated and collapsed to facilitate removal of the fetus from the birth canal. This action obviously ends the "life" of the fetus cleanly and quickly. However this technique would probably be impractical for a mature human being with a more structurally developed skull.
Well, lets look at the principle of the thing: if you refused a plea bargain and then lost the trial, you should still be able to get the plea bargain that was offered?
Or is this just an argument against all high-stakes plea bargaining?
Plea bargaining, by relieving the state of its burden of proof, inevitably blurs the line between guilty and not guilty, because, some defendants will accept a plea bargain even if innocent in order to avoid a potentially catastrophic outcome as they (and their counsel) know juries are unpredictable and no human institution is infallible.
Post a Comment