Teresa Lewis

of her own creation - she hired the men, No one forced her to.

No, she had an IQ above retarded (as that is the standard).  She was not restricted in her mental capacity, just not as smart as others (for those wondering, the IQ to be deemed retarded is 70, hers was 72).

Wrong again.  As dictated by law and SCOTUS rulings, the JURY found her guilty and sentenced (not awarded) her to death.

Wrong - for the first time.  it was her second marriage.

Wrong - she planned the hit, and hired them.  That much is part of the court testimony and is not in dispute.

Pre-meditated murder.  You cannot get the death penalty for involuntary or unplanned murder (if no other crime like Robbery is involved).

Wrong - just because you hire someone else to do the job, you can (and she was) still be guilty of capital murder.  The argument is sound in ALL countries of the world.  just because you use another human instead of a gum. knife, brick or bolder to kill someone does not change the intent or the results.  And in the murder arena, only Capital murder is punishable by death, and her case - which is SOP - was appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

Having corrected or clarified your mis-understandings and errors, let me pontificate.

#1: I am against the death penalty.  Indeed, I find it ironic and macabre that she got the death penalty and yet Richard McCroskey, who killed 4, at least one of them premeditated, only got life.  There is no justice in the disparity.

#2: I am also shocked, and very saddened by both your view and that of which you claim the rest of the world's view.  it is clear that you and them are misogynists who apparently feel that women are not real people.  that is the only way to describe the double standard you and they hold on the issue of the death penalty for women.

The shocking part is not that a woman was put to death.  Like it or not that is the law.  The shocking part is you and your contemporaries do not see women as equals, but instead as possessions like most muslim societies do - in other words, while they stone their women to death, they get the same treatment from their men as you apparently treat women in your own condescending way.

And one more item.  She was not the first in modern times (since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976), but the 12th.  The 11th being done in 2005.  So why is her death any more tragic than the other 11 (or 39 if you go back to the founding of the country)?

I didn't know women were any more different then men when it comes to murder. What is the big deal with giving a woman the death penalty? We treat children as adults and lock them up in jail when they commit crimes of a certain nature. Remember the kid who went to jail for killing the little girl while wrestling?

I don't know about what DrGuy said in his comment, I know very little about the justice system but his comments seem to make sense. of course anyone here is free to dispute his corrections.

What I am curious of is why does this shock the world? A women commits murder, either by her own doing or by hiring someone else to do it, goes to court, loses trial, loses repeals and is sentenced to death and this shocks the world yet women in countries like Iran simply have to be with another man other than family (talking or just being there doing nothing) don't get to go to court and are stoned to death in public by people who have nothing to do with her or what she did or not even part of the legal system there and somehow this is equal to what happened to this woman in the US?.

Bahu there are times when I enjoy some of the things you write and may even agree with you or even give you props when I don't but there are times like this where you are almost as bad as those videos Bin Laden and his cronies put out from time to time.

It caused shock waves because her IQ was so low.  The difference between 72 and 70 is basically impossible to tell apart using IQ tests as they are unreliable and have a huge history of misapplication. 

The woman getting killed by the state while the actual killer didn't also threw up a lot of 'confusion',

Perhaps if only she were unfaithful, a good stoning would be in order, He, or did I miss the article expressing outrage over that one?

Why should stupidity be a ticket out of responsibility? If she were that mentally retarded, she should have been under constant care by a responsible party. The fact is people with a much lower IQ than her have led productive lives without killing anyone. She was smart enough to try to have some else do the deed, so she was aware of the repercussions. I'm sorry the accomplice didn't share the same fate. The tragedy here is he did get the DP, not the other way around.

You are right.  But then what is the difference between 100 and 102?  You have to draw a line somewhere.  and there are always going to be people just over or under it.

And you are also correct about the sentencing difference (I could have used that if I was quick enough instead of the McCroskey case).  There is no consistency.  But that is not due to any evil plan, just the fact that the sentences are done by a jury, and every jury is different.

[quote]Wrong again. As dictated by law and SCOTUS rulings, the JURY found her guilty and sentenced (not awarded) her to death.[/quote]

-Her mental ability was so limited that I find it difficult to believe that she committed pre meditated murder. In fact she may have been manipulated into being an accomplice.

Shallenberger may have been the more guilty one but he killed himself. And Rodney got only life in Jail paerhaps with parole.

Even if the Jury found her guilty she coould have been saved by excecutive action.

I do not think that kikking a woman was the issue here. I put it in that rhetorical manner because of the US reaction to a similar case in Iran where US has argued that it is barbaric to sentence a woman to death.

US law does take into consideration the mental state of the defendant. There is something called diminished responsibility;ity

.

It shocks thae world because while we are convinced that she is guilty, we do not think it is one of the rarest of the rere cases that deserve capital punishment. Rodney perhaps was more seserving.

If you remember what I said when Tookie Williams was put to death, you will understand that when a person has changes and is not the same person who did the offence then you have grounds for clemncy.

It was barbaric to sentence a woman to be stoned to death, hence the vast international outcry.  Which was massive compared to the comments about this case

The jury that heard the evidence and rendered a verdict believed it.  What you find 'hard to believe' is irrelevant.  And pretty damned arrogant of you to 1) presume to speak for the world, and 2) to believe that your uninformed opinion is more meaningful or valid than the fully informed opinions of 12 jurors.

As long as we're on the subject, if you ask me anyone who commits or solicits pre-meditated murder suffers from 'diminished capacity' no matter their IQ.  Ted Kaczynski comes to mind.

On the issue of the state taking or arrogating to itself the right to taker life of a young, healthy human being evryone has an opinion-- yopu cannot say that it is arrogant or "speaking for the world". I only say that we were shocked.

The Iranian case is more similar than you shoose to believe. She too had her husband bumped off by her lover and she is now being considered for commutation of her death sentence. While the USA rejected world publiuc opinion and went ahead with the excecution. In fact the Iranians seem  to be more receptive to world outrage than the USA. In fact the US case and the Iranian cases are quite similar and as for the stoning it has not been carried out and in any case that is thwe Law of the land. As Daiwa put it" it is arrogant on the part of anyone questioning the judiscial process.

The emphasis should have been on the word stoned.  While I disagree with the death sentence at all at least the USA tries to do as humanly as possible, stoning is pretty much designed to be as painful as possible.

If these test are so unreliable, how are we to believe she was 72 then? For all we know she was a 90 or perhaps a 60. In the end they determined a 72 and, by law, it was above 70. Where do we draw the line, as DrGuy put it, when someone is so close to a specific limit? Should children who get 1 or 2 points below an A get an A anyways just because they were so close? Should a drunk driver get a ticket or be arrested for being .01 under the legal limit? It's interesting to think how one wants to bend the rules a bit depending on ones point of view of the situation at hand.

Had this person been a man and attempted to kill his wife, would that 2 point difference be seen in the same manner? Would this had caused a shock wave as well? Would the IQ test be considered unreliable as well? What is it that they call this? Double standards?

While I agree, this is nothing new in our court system as those who do the actual crime can get easier sentences if they talk and give more details and if the others implicated stay quiet.

I'm curious to know how you know her mental condition? Based on the same test Basmas said was not reliable? As Daiwa said, to commit the murder, premeditate it or even participate in it shows signed of diminished capacity as far as I'm concerned unless you are absolutely deemed crazy. I just love how it takes murder to finally decide if someone is crazy or too stupid and used as an excuse to keep them from being punished.

Your color scheme leaves a lot to be desired.  That being said,her mental ability was fine. She was just not the sharpest card in the deck.  You can call her stupid, but she was in no way mentally diminished.

They have to have a reason. 

Oh, but it most definitely is.  The US, like it or not, has a legal death penalty.  And tens of people are executed each year.  Apparently you and the "rest of the world" seem to think that women are inferior to men because that is your only objection.  I have not seen you object to the 39 men put to death before her this year alone.

I agree.  That is part of my dilemma.  I think that anyone who plans a murder (and therefore is hardly remorseful - except about being caught) has mental problems already.