McDonnell again declines to stop woman's execution

I guess the governor just likes having blood on his hands.

jnrentz@aol.com,
What about the blood on her's? At least the governor isn't profiting from her death, didn't help arrange it, pay for the weapons used to commit it or give the killers access to the home to facilitate it.

This is not the first time someone will be executed for arranging the death of another without actually committing the crimes themselves. Marilyn Plantz was executed in Oklahoma in 2001 under similar circumstances.

Executing females is rare but when it occurs it's a media circus with facetious claims of diminished capability or conspiracy. Frances Newton was executed in Texas in 2005 amidst claims that police and prosecutors conspired to hide evidence of a second gun that was the "actual" murder weapon. Those claims evaporated following the execution.

Despite the fact that Lewis graduated from high school, successfully completed a certified nursing assistant program at a local college, had a job, and drove a car her defense has tried to rebrand her, after conviction and sentencing, as a simpleton. They did this, post sentencing, by hiring "expert witnesses" (psychiatrist and psychologist) who predictably wrote opinions in her favor that she was incapable of planning and organizing a murder plot. Not an unusual tactic for a post conviction appeal. However, this woman had a drug habit which she supported by presenting herself to a series of doctors with a convincing list of symptoms to obtain a supply of prescription medications. This seems a little inconsistent with those who claim she was incapable of planning and carrying out actions.

Insofar as IQ was concerned, Leigh D. Hagan, Psy.D., a forensic and clinical psychologist, who administered the IQ tests for the State "concluded that these I.Q. test scores represented an "underestimate" of Lewis' intellect, and that she had not put forth her best effort during the I.Q. test."

This case has been reviewed by multiple courts of appeal, including the Virginia Supreme Court, all of which have supported the conviction and sentencing. She received the death penalty because, as the sentencing judge observed, she was the "head of the serpent" responsible for the murder for money of her husband and stepson. There is nothing incomprehensible, illogical or unjust in her sentence.

Ditto what TRex3 said.... And very well said.....

I applaud the Governor for not reducing the sentence. Virginia is a Death Penalty state. If you don't like that, you can work with your legislators to have that changed, but while we are, the law should be enforced equally. Women are equal to men in every way, including the ability to commit murder and should be subject to the same punishment.

Nothing incomprehensible, illogical or unjust, huh? The actual murderers get prison, but an "arranger" gets executed? How does that make sense exactly?

Shoot the juice to her!

Put the juice to the caboose!

Posted by: TRex3
--
It something that Attorneys do to make a case.

While many of the argument you presented is correct, however there have been some cases that has dubious claim. I even saw an interview of two lawyers withholding evidence of an innocent man who went to jail for a crime that committed by their client who freely admitted his complicity in the crime until he was executed for another crime(after all the appeal run its course) many years later. Their defense: Lawyer-Client privilege that prohibit breaking it.

Now she's getting a taste of what her husband went through. Besides did the two yahoos with her just up and pick her out of a line up to kill her husband? I mean, if you were going to pick someone's spouse to kill would it be some clerk at the Piggly-Wiggly? Yep, they're bound to have enough.

Ho hum, so sad, too bad!

briffy wrote: Nothing incomprehensible, illogical or unjust, huh? The actual murderers get prison, but an "arranger" gets executed? How does that make sense exactly?

briffy, that's because she's the "head of the serpent," the leader, the one who hired the triggermen and facilitate the killings. She's Hitler, while the triggermen are the camp guards. I know she argued otherwise, but the court didn't buy her arguments. Does that make sense now?

Why do those against capital punishment confuse mental ability with moral guidance?

I have seen Lewis characterized as "borderline mentally retarded". That does not mean she is "borderline morally retarded." The relative IQ of a person is not an indicator of her moral values. Never has been.

As far as her supporters' claim she was manipulated by people who more smarter than her, I say hogwash!

Bernie Madoff's victims, most of whom probably have much higher than average IQ's, were manipulated by that criminal.

Lewis originated and planned the crime, recruited the gunmen and pimped out her daughter to keep the gunmen in the conspiracy.

She admitted her part in the crime. The guilt of the party is clear and the law as it is written in Virginia is used most appropriately for such a heinous case.

Nothing incomprehensible, illogical or unjust, huh? The actual murderers get prison, but an "arranger" gets executed? How does that make sense exactly?

Posted by: briffy | September 21, 2010 1:32 PM
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

You are correct briffy, they ALL should be executed.

sorry mqpham, we're not talking about genocide here and your hyperbolic comparison is in extremely poor taste.

sorry mqpham, we're not talking about genocide here and your hyperbolic comparison is in extremely poor taste.

briffy,

Why does it matter if it's genocide or killing or two persons? My comparison, although exagerated, was to clarify that she received a harsher sentence because she was found to be the leader.

Not sure why you find my analogy to be in poor taste. I guess "taste" is all subjective. You like Outback; I like The Palm. No big deal.

briffy,

Why does it matter if it's genocide or killing or two persons? My comparison, although exagerated, was to clarify that she received a harsher sentence because she was found to be the leader. Not so difficult to understand.

Not sure why you find my analogy to be in poor taste. I guess "taste" is all subjective. You like Outback; I like The Palm. No big deal.

Ah, yes. The Christian Right's mix bag on what it means to take a life. More pop corn, please.

Now if I wanted to stereotype the behavior of people based on race this would be one of those times. But I wont.

Why does it matter if it's genocide or killing or two persons?

Posted by: mqpham

-------------

Really? Did you just post that?

Gotta love the death penalty advocates. Completely unable to describe why one crime gets the death penalty while other nearly identical crimes do not. So every death penalty case becomes the work of pure evil incarnate.

The completely arbitrary nature of how the law is applied doesn't seem to bother people more. Too busy calling for blood from the safety of their computer keyboards I guess...

Maybe Delegate Bob Marshall can ask Ken Cuccinelli for an AG opinion on whether this is legal. Marshall has already done this for abortion. Why shouldn't he do it for capital punishment?

ghokee wrote: The completely arbitrary nature of how the law is applied doesn't seem to bother people more.

How's this case arbitrary? The court found her the leader and sent her to death, while it found the triggermen followers and sent them to life. The leader, who planned and facilitated the crime, got the harsher punishment. That doesn't seem arbitrary, does it?

Courts consistently award a harsher punishment for crimes of pre-meditation, less for crimes of passion. I don't see why it's so unfathomable to people that the planmaker should die and her tools should not.

Put simply: Without her planning and faciliation, the crime would have never been committed (at least not by these two dolts).

Hang her.

We have the death penalty for a reason, and she clearly deserves to die.

Murder for hire is not a crime of passion. It is a reasoned, calculated affair.

Let's make sure the perps have a reason to figure in the ultimate penalty.

AMF!

sorry mqpham, we're not talking about genocide here and your hyperbolic comparison is in extremely poor taste.

Posted by: briffy | September 21, 2010 2:59 PM

The second most frequently used liberal counter, after calling opposition 'Racist,' when no facts or logic support their position: "You have offended me!"

Hey, briffy, I'm offended that you are offended.

That first comment was uncalled for. I'm no fan of execution. However, if the jury awarded it, the law calls for it and the Governor considered but denied clemency its a bit much to say "the governor just likes having blood on his hands." If the condemned designed the plan and paid for it, she murdered someone as sure as the shooters. So whom has the blood on their hands? It is hyperbole like that that hurts the "no death penalty" crowd. This one too -- "Too busy calling for blood from the safety of their computer keyboards I guess... " I know there is a certain moral superiority amongst some in the "no death penalty" crowd just as there is in the so called "pro-life" crowd. These comments evidence that superiority.

Somewhere, Pontius Pilate is smiling in approval...if McDonnell had any courage and integrity, he would volunteer to pull the switch himself and...oh wait, did I just use the words "courage" and "integrity" in the same sentence with McDonnell? Those are traits that McDonnell has no concept of, so...never mind.

Today's headline, 10 more NATO troops die in Afganistan

///////////////////////////

guess the governor just likes having blood on his hands.

Posted by: jnrentz@aol.com | September 21, 2010 11:01 AM

//////////////////////

guess the president just likes having blood on his hands.

There is no man made system of evidence capable of determining who lives and who dies. This very debate shows why the death penalty is wrong. Subjective IQ tests or other indicia of her capacity fall far short of sufficiency for the State to take the life of a human being. Besides, life in prison is probably greater punishment on some level than death -- and whether she's executed or dies of natural causes, she will still meet the same Maker

She probably doesn't deserve to breathe the air of a free nation. However, if she is put to death, it will be "the people of the State of Vermont." A dozen adult citizens should be selected at random. They would all be given levers to pull. If all of them pull the lever, then the execution takes place.
I vote against capital punishment because I believe everyone needs as much time as possible to seek slavation and eternal life. And, I would be against executing her because it will give fuel to the Muslims who want to stone a lady to death. Of coure, the Muslim lady did not commit a capital crime. But, don't encourage wackoes.

That the state still puts anyone to death, disgusts and saddens me. Too many errors, too much debate over what is right. Killing, under any circumstances, is wrong. I also don't get how anyone can be against say, abortion - and be for the death penalty. Life is life. That the people who pulled the trigger get 'life' - the person who hired them gets death, I just don't get how this is justice. Sign me, in Alabama, disappointed in Virginia tonight.