Did Aileen Wuornos deserve to be executed?

[Alt+F4]

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.

Very true, but I think the law should take into consideration those who know what they are doing is wrong, but can't stop themselves from doing it. I'm reminded of Jeff Dahmer. There is something very wrong when that monster was declared legally sane. Yet move a few states over and we have Andrea Yates - insane.

 

[linusrichard]

Very true, but I think the law should take into consideration those who know what they are doing is wrong, but can't stop themselves from doing it. I'm reminded of Jeff Dahmer. There is something very wrong when that monster was declared legally sane. Yet move a few states over and we have Andrea Yates - insane.

That's because the legal test for insanity varies from state to state. Many states have the ALI/MPC test for insanity, which seeks to combine the M'Naghten test (described by me above) with the "irresistible impulse" test, which is what you're talking about. If, by reason of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or conform his conduct to the law, the defense is good. But Florida has the older rule.

Wisconsin (where Dahmer was found sane) has the ALI/MPC rule.

Texas (where Yates was found insane) has the M'Naghten test, combined with the Irresistible Impulse test - how this differs from ALI/MPC, I'm not entirely sure.

But what I think is also key, apart from different states, and different tests, is different juries. Whatever the test is, the jury has to apply it to the evidence put in front of it and make a decision. So as long as you have a jury system, you're going to have results that seem incongruous, like Dahmer sane and Yates not.

 

[fuelair]

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?

I like your thinking on this!!!

 

[Dogdoctor]

Death is an easy sentence, having to spend the rest of your life in prison is more inhumane.

 

[Drudgewire]

Yes she did. What she DIDN'T deserve was a sympathic film portrayal of her any more than Bundy or Dahmer would.

 

[linusrichard]

Yes she did. What she DIDN'T deserve was a sympathic film portrayal of her any more than Bundy or Dahmer would.

I thought the movie made her look like a monster (no pun intended - honestly). It also showed that she had an incredibly bad life. Just as an incredibly bad life doesn't excuse doing the things she did, so it is equally true that doing the things she did doesn't take away from her horrible life. What does it mean to "deserve" or "not deserve" to have your story told? The filmmaker thought it would be a compelling story, is my guess. And if that's true, the filmmaker was right, in my opinion. And if you thought it was sympathetic, then I guess you were watching a different movie from me, because I didn't come away from it with any sympathy for her for the things she did, only a lot of pity for her for the things that had been done to her.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Fair enough, but then, when we're removing beasts from society, how much time and effort should we spend on accomodating the beast?

I mean, it's not like she's an edge case, convicted of a single crime on shaky circumstantial evidence and questionable procedures. To me, her rampant murderous insanity is an argument in favor of lethal injection. After all, it's not like we put rabid dogs in psych wards.

 

[Cainkane1]

I thought the movie made her look like a monster (no pun intended - honestly). It also showed that she had an incredibly bad life. Just as an incredibly bad life doesn't excuse doing the things she did, so it is equally true that doing the things she did doesn't take away from her horrible life. What does it mean to "deserve" or "not deserve" to have your story told? The filmmaker thought it would be a compelling story, is my guess. And if that's true, the filmmaker was right, in my opinion. And if you thought it was sympathetic, then I guess you were watching a different movie from me, because I didn't come away from it with any sympathy for her for the things she did, only a lot of pity for her for the things that had been done to her.

Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were raised in loving homes. Aileen Wournos was not. She was sexually abused from younger than five until she was forced from her home at age fifteen. To me that separates her for the Ted Bundys and jeffrey Dahmers of the world. I don't believe she was sane. Had she been raised decently I doubt she would have turned to crime.

 

[Almo]

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.

My statement that nobody deserves it is not the reason I think it's wrong. I did not intend to imply that one statment was the reason for the other.

 

[Fnord]

So ... does anyone here think that Joe Namath deserved to be picked as MVP for the 1969 Super Bowl even though he never threw a touchdown pass for the entire game?

I mean, as long as we're dissecting a flogged-dead horse in this thread, we may as well bring in a broken-down old mule or two...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Fair enough, but then, when we're removing beasts from society, how much time and effort should we spend on accomodating the beast?

I mean, it's not like she's an edge case, convicted of a single crime on shaky circumstantial evidence and questionable procedures.

You aren't actually arguing in favour of the death penalty because it's cheaper are you?

 

[Bluto]

I think Mark6 has it right. The reason for the death penalty, at least in part, should be - not so much as a deterent to others, but as a deterent to the murderer. In that regard I think it's quite effective. Murderers do not quit murdering just because they're arrested or imprisoned. And they certainly don't quit if they're paroled either.

My only issue with capital punishment is that it should require a higher echelon of proof. Only those that we're deadban certain of their guilt should be subject to it...

 

[Skeptic]

The movie took some liberties -- it made the first guy she killed a monster and the last guy a good Samaritan, both untrue, but the intent was to show her descent from someone who killed once in what could have been self-defense to someone who kills randomly for pleasure or revenge.

Like "Dead Man Walking", while showing that the death penalty is a tough punishment (no kidding), the movie by no means made her into a I-was-wrongly-accused saint or into a poor, misunderstood soul.

 

[quadraginta]

Death is an easy sentence, having to spend the rest of your life in prison is more inhumane.

I agree with an earlier comment.

My opposition to the DP is that it is much less "easily" reversed, if found to be in error.

ETA:

If 'sanity" or lack thereof is to be a consideration at all, then that defense develops a certain flavor of mobility, since what we as a society deem to be "sane" behavior is very much a moving target dependent on the era, demography, and other such factors. Once introduced as a potential extenuating circumstance in a case I feel that it really removes all chance of permanent certainty in a conviction.

The varied assortment of opinions about the Wuornos case in this thread alone demonstrates that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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?

Guess what? Her lawyers probably tried that line, and failed. What makes you so special?

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

... for murdering several men who picked her up hitchhiking. She robbed them and shot them to death.

Death penalty seems most appropriate. I do not agree with your "The Devil made me do it" defense.

DR

 

[Fredrik]

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

I think a lot of people deserve a lot worse than just being killed. I'm still against the death penalty though, mainly because occasionally the wrong person gets convicted, and if he/she is dead, there's nothing you can do to make things better for them or their families. The other reason is that the death penalty causes a lot more suffering in the criminals' families than life in prison does.

Death penalty do not make sense to me. "You kill other people and it is forbidden so we will KILL YOU".

I find it amazing that people actually use that as if it was an argument. It's illegal to lock someone up against their will too, so if what you said is a valid argument against the death penalty, it's a valid argument against just about all forms of punishment. Incarceration would definitely be ruled out. Fines too, since stealing money is illegal. The harshest punishement a court would be able to hand out would be to say "You're a very bad man".

 

[theprestige]

You aren't actually arguing in favour of the death penalty because it's cheaper are you?

No, I'm arguing in favor of the death penalty because exile is impractical and inhuman monsters are more trouble than they're worth, alive.

A sane human being who knows the difference between right and wrong can repent. He can feel remorse for his actions, and turn over a new leaf. He can do the crime and do the time. He can accept the consequences of his actions, and return to society after suffering those consequences. He can be rehabilitated.

Monsters are different. They lack that essential human spark that makes it worthwhile to attempt rehabilitation, that makes punishment meaningful, that makes remorse and recovery possible.

In another world, another time, I'd recommend exile. It's how feudal Japanese villagers dealt with those members of the community who undermined the survival of the community. But exile isn't practical nowadays. So I recommend death. Not for all murderers, necessarily, but certainly death for those murderers whose explanation is "I kill because I can't help it, it's just the way I am and I can't be any other way".

 

[Alt+F4]

Monsters are different. They lack that essential human spark that makes it worthwhile to attempt rehabilitation, that makes punishment meaningful, that makes remorse and recovery possible.

I agree with you that some people are monsters. They look human but they are born without humanity, empathy, sympathy and they kill and will continue to kill without compunction. They lack what essentially makes us human. Since they aren't humans (just look like them) they don't deserve human rights.

The issue then is a both legal and psychiaric - how do we identify these monsters? Sometimes it's obvious, such in the cases of Warnos, Dhamer, and Bundy. Other times it's harder, such as in the case of Andera Yates.

 

[Damien Evans]

I agree with you that some people are monsters. They look human but they are born without humanity, empathy, sympathy and they kill and will continue to kill without compunction. They lack what essentially makes us human. Since they aren't humans (just look like them) they don't deserve human rights.

The issue then is a both legal and psychiaric - how do we identify these monsters? Sometimes it's obvious, such in the cases of Warnos, Dhamer, and Bundy. Other times it's harder, such as in the case of Andera Yates.

Hey, not all of us who lack empathy are monsters.

 

[quadraginta]

Hey, not all of us who lack empathy are monsters.

...and not all of us monsters lack empathy.

More seriously, it has been mentioned as an argument against the 'childhood abuse' defense that people survive such histories without becoming abusers themselves. I believe this argument has merit. By the same token sociopaths can lead acceptable lives by behaving in a fashion which conforms to cultural mores. They may not be likable, but they are often quite successful and frequently respected, perhaps for aspects of the very traits which also represent their sociopathy. It has been suggested without a great deal of sarcasm that many of us have bosses who are sociopaths.

If we can define when a mental condition is the cause of social transgression, which seems problematic in itself, how can we determine the point at which that condition constitutes a disability which merits consideration as a factor mitigating guilt, or maybe rather for reducing punishment?