Did Aileen Wuornos deserve to be executed?

[fuelair]

Here here! It seems to be a fairly pointless exercise, and one contrary to any humanist principles I am aware of.

Not trying to jump on you, just using as a jumping off point_ Those who are clearly guilty should be handled such that they can NEVER do what they did again. And I have no problem with revenge either. Prisons as they are guarantee neither. As much as I like people, I am apparently not a humanist. I can, easily, live with that.

 

[I Ratant]

No.

But I don't think anyone deserves execution. The Death Penalty is wrong, period.

,
It isn't a comfort knowing that the next hitchhiker you pick up won't be her?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I too think death penalty is totally wrong, for a lot of reasons. But not for the reason that no one at all ever deserves it. I actually think that is one of the weaker arguments against it.

I think the strongest argument against it is that it is the one punishment the state cannot take back or otherwise reverse if they find out they screwed up. We have a large number of people in Illinois who've been released from death row because they've been exonerated via DNA analysis -- ironically, many of these people were convicted because of confessions. The frightening thing is that I believe we had released just about as many people as we'd executed in the same time frame.

When the news about this broke, it was like the state got hit in the gut with an anvil. A helluva lot of people were completely shocked, because it showed to everyone just how frakked up the Illinois justice system really was (is).

Thankfully, we had a governor at the time who had the balls to put a moratorium on the death penalty. It still stands, but there are still a bunch of jerks who want to reinstate it, even without the reforms to fix the system, because they have some twisted sense of "justice". They seem to think it'll win points for them in heaven with God

 

[quixotecoyote]

,
It isn't a comfort knowing that the next hitchhiker you pick up won't be her?

How is that a benefit unique to the death penalty?

 

[dann]

Good documentary: Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer.

 

[Toke]

I get the repeat crime bit, but have always wondered about the deterring effect, it should be greater for carefully considered crimes, right?
So why did ken Lay only get prison?

 

[Mark6]

,
It isn't a comfort knowing that the next hitchhiker you pick up won't be her?

Or that if you are ever in prison for something, she won't be your cellmate?

That's why I support death penalty -- in some extreme cases. Not because some actions are "so horrific these people foreit their right to live", but because some people are too dangerous to exist.

Every year several hundred people are murdered in US prisons by prisoners already locked up for murder. THAT is the best argument for death penalty IMO. Not deterrent. Not retribution. Rather, elimination of someone whose continuous existence is a threat to everyone around. BTW, "horrific" is not a criterion as far as I am concerned. I cannot think of anything more horrific than mother putting her child into boiling water (actual case in Russia, luckily the child survived). But I would not have this woman executed -- after all, it's not like she'll ever do that to another prisoner.

Oh, and to answer OP -- yes, I think executing Wuornos was entirely justified and proper. She demonstrated utter disregard for human life, and very likely would have continued her "career" in prison.

 

[I Ratant]

How is that a benefit unique to the death penalty?

.
I'm kinda non-plussed on this message.
The death penalty stops all behavior.
If there's a gal traipsing around the countryside offing the adventurous types that offer her a lift, and her career is terminated with extreme prejudice, -that- particular source of concern is removed from consideration.
This person had a severe problem with reality, from that arrest record, pretty obviously not learning from previous experiences and failing to adjust her behavior to be more socially acceptable.
Took it to extremes, some might say.
Worth keeping alive?
Only if license plates from the state of Florida have some value other than the usual, as she might have had to work in prison doing something.
It's not a extreme thought that she'd be just as socially destructive in prison, and would need special care and attention 24/7, just to protect everyone else she might be a hazard to, for the rest of her life.
Not much of a life, 24/7 in solitary.

 

[shuize]

Or that if you are ever in prison for something, she won't be your cellmate?

That's why I support death penalty -- in some extreme cases. Not because some actions are "so horrific these people foreit their right to live", but because some people are too dangerous to exist.

Personally, I support the death penalty because some actions are so horrific these people forefit their right to live AND because some people are too dangerous to exist.

Wuornos? Good riddance.

 

[ugot2bekidding]

After seeing the documentary The Selling Of A Serial Killer, I feel she should have gotten life without parole. I couldn't help but feel sorry for her considering what happened to her after she was arrested:

- She gets adopted by Arlene Pralle, a born-again Christian, who claims she wants to help her but it's clear to anyone with half a brain that all she wants to do is exploit her (charges up to 25k for an interview, etc.). Pralle even gets an agent, her born-again lawyer friend.

- At her first trial, for killing the guy she claimed was done in self-defense, her incompetent public defenders left out a key piece of evidence...that this guy had spent 10 years in prison for rape. The judge then allows evidence from her subsequent crimes, an unusual move, apparently.

- Wournos fires the PD, and for the next trial she hires Pralle's bumbling agent/lawyer friend (who, I might add, was once living in a tepee for several years...no, he's not a Native American).

- They urge her to plead no contest! When asked about this they both reply (on camera) that it's time for Wournos to confess and prepare to meet Jesus. Pralle even seems ecstatic that "soon she will be home with Jesus".

I'm not excusing what she did, obviously. But she was mentally unhinged (Psychiatrist's testimony), and should have gotten life without parole. At the very least, she deserved to have lawyers that would actually defend her instead of leading her to the electric chair so she could be with Jesus (and they could profit from her story). It was a complete sham.

The documentary is on youtube. Here is part 1 ( I didn't want to embed 9 videos here).

 

[linusrichard]

She was found mentally competent to stand trial, so she was considered "legally sane."

No. These two things might be true individually, but neither one implies the other. For one, they are different standards. For another, they refer to different times. Legal insanity such as would excuse murder refers to the mental state at the time of the murder. Competency to stand trial refers to the mental state at the time of the trial.

 

[Damien Evans]

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Aileen Wournos was executed by lethal injection for murdering several men who picked her up hitchhiking. She robbed them and shot them to death.

Ok investigating into her past reveals a life filled with abuse both sexual, physical and mental. Was she mentally competant to even stand trial?

I personally feel she should have been sentenced to life in a mental hospital.

Yes. If it is know, for a fact, that she did these crimes, it doesn't matter if she was insane or not. Death will forever stop her from further continuing these crimes.

 

[BenBurch]

Personally I would reserve the Death Penalty for those who kill in prison while there serving life for murder. And the reason is that we have a positive duty to protect guards and other prisoners and a vicious creature than would murder again in that environment just cannot be housed safely.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, there is no way she was truly competent to stand trial, in my opinion. A simple video search turns up clips where she is obviously delusional:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFBcjII3QAE

Based on that video my unprofessional assessment is that she was out of her tree. Given that, I'm really not sure how a rational person can conclude that she was fully responsible for her actions.

Rationalizing her execution by saying that now we're safe from her, or that it's kinder than life in a mental hospital, doesn't work for me. There are other ways we could have made ourselves safe from her.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Aileen Wournos was executed by lethal injection for murdering several men who picked her up hitchhiking. She robbed them and shot them to death.

Short answer: yes.

Ok investigating into her past reveals a life filled with abuse both sexual, physical and mental. Was she mentally competant to even stand trial?

Yeah, that's my moms life too. Yes, she incurred mental and emotional damage from it. But she still managed to retain the moral certainty that murder is wrong.

And here's the thing, even though we often hear the mantra of "abusees become abusers", my mom managed to break the cycle. Though in recent years, following the death of her abuser she has steadily gotten worse, from the time I was born (I am the oldest) to the time my youngest sibling reached the age of 18, none of us have ever felt abused. During our formative years, when it was most important, she held the line.

I see no reason to expect the late Ms. Wournos to have abandoned as much of her own moral responsibility as she did.

I personally feel she should have been sentenced to life in a mental hospital.

Apperantly, that's not what the judge felt.

 

[quixotecoyote]

.
I'm kinda non-plussed on this message.
The death penalty stops all behavior.
If there's a gal traipsing around the countryside offing the adventurous types that offer her a lift, and her career is terminated with extreme prejudice, -that- particular source of concern is removed from consideration.
This person had a severe problem with reality, from that arrest record, pretty obviously not learning from previous experiences and failing to adjust her behavior to be more socially acceptable.
Took it to extremes, some might say.
Worth keeping alive?
Only if license plates from the state of Florida have some value other than the usual, as she might have had to work in prison doing something.
It's not a extreme thought that she'd be just as socially destructive in prison, and would need special care and attention 24/7, just to protect everyone else she might be a hazard to, for the rest of her life.
Not much of a life, 24/7 in solitary.

<shrug> That's a set of arguments you're free to make. It's different than (and unconnected to) your previous statement, which remains to be shown as uniquely derived from the death penalty, whether you like the message or not.

 

[dann]

This person had a severe problem with reality, from that arrest record, pretty obviously not learning from previous experiences and failing to adjust her behavior to be more socially acceptable.

The lesson she learned from her childhood experiences did not help her draw sensible conclusions or behave in an acceptable manner: Life and Death of a Serial Killer.
Lack of empathy is usually an acquired characteristic.

 

[linusrichard]

A lot of talk about insanity. A few points:

1. Florida has the olde schoole M'Naghten Test for legal insanity. This requires the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the commission of the acts, she had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect, and that, because of this condition, she either didn't know what she was doing or the consequences, or didn't know what she was doing was wrong.

The point is, it doesn't matter how crazy she is or was, or why she was crazy. If, in spite of her craziness, she knew at the time what she was doing and that it was wrong, she is not entitled to the insanity defense.

2. Insanity is a defense, not a mitigating factor. If a defendant can prove that she was insane according to this standard, the result is acquittal (or dismissal), not a reduced sentence.


Note that these are not my opinions about how it should be, but how it is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But it is accurate. Which is why the laws desperately need to be revised.

What should the standard be then?