Lesson one. If you're not guilty don't say that you are, under any circumstance. A person that does this is probably trying to protect someone else from their fate. IMO these people deserve whatever befalls them too. They are obstructing justice, and if that includes murder, IMO they are as guilty as the person committing the act. I feel no remorse for these types.

True. I've no issue with this.

Then some degree of doubt must have existed, such as a single or no witness present. Care should be taken in those instances. Can you get in front of your keyboard and honestly write that there is a chance the Fort Hood shooter is innocent? This is specifically the type of case I'm speaking of for an expedited process "should the defendant be found guilty".

Agreed. There is an appeals process, but someone should be able to shed some degree of doubt. I don't agree with delay tactics to put off the inevitable and they cost the taxpayers money.

One and two just making a point on how people are dismissive on one for of killing (abortion) and against another (death penalty). As for repeat offenders I was referring to people that kill are released and kill again. I would say that is relevant to the discussion.

As for my "Champion" statement, if you are saying you are for the death penalty, then I stand corrected, otherwise I stand by my statement as that is my opinion (neither you or anyone else need agree, change nothing for me). 

I think there has been a mix up here. Angli-Saxon common law makes a clear distinction between homicide with intent and homicide without express intent. In most counties the intent  behind the killing will be established in order to award the capital punishment. In only the Middle East you have a situation where any killing even a trffic related death is punished bydeath. The real reason for thsi is that in the West the State took on the role as the primary settler of scores whereas in the Middle East the "family" clan" still have a say in doling out the punishment.

Many logical concepts of justice, such as the distinction between Premeditated Murder and Negligent Homicide, seem hard for those outside the 'West' to grasp.

You finally stated the obvious.  Yet your article was not about the inhumanity of the death penalty itself, but about the inhumanity of putting a woman to death.  When you segregate based upon gender - no matter the intent - you denigrate those who have that attribute.  That was my original point and remains my contention with your proclamation.

Now you contradict yourself.  if her diminished mental capacity was sufficient for her to get a lighter sentence, then it is sufficient for her to be spared any penalty as the diminished mental capacity is about the ability to discern right from wrong.  if she has that capacity, then she should be punished in accordance with the laws of the society.  if she does not, then she should not be punished.  Sentencing is not about establishing guilt.

But, retardation is a medical diagnosis that can prevent you from getting a marriage license- at least in Michigan.  Having an IQ test performed AFTER conviction (and the person knowing why they were being tested) could be suspect. 

Also, if there were that many mentally handicapped adults (ie: verifiable retardation) then there WOULD be a law that you had to be proven mentally able to be married and care for children.

Really?  I haven't read anything where that was proven in court.

That is his attempt at spin and rewriting the facts.  The claim she was manipulated was part of her defense, but of course never proven since it is not true.

I do not understand why such a fuss is made. I did not say that ececuting a woman was in a sense bad or barbaric. I have stated that the USS Court will take a call on the issue of the method of excecution and I have not ventured into that rather troublesome terrain. I have said and I maintain that the woman in question was not the one who did the actual shooting. The killer only got a life sentence whereas the woman was put to death even though she was only an accessory to the crime. There is also the large issue of mental competence. She may not have unsderstood the implications of her actions inview of her limited IQ.

OP: You seem to think that women aren't real people. That women are angels sent down from heaven to be awarded to righteous men to be used for child bearing and sex. Contrary to your misogynistic views, women are PEOPLE, fully capable of thought, invention, philosophy, and in this case, premeditated murder and being punished.

Also, you seem to think that the USA executing a someone convicted of first degree murder (who is a woman) is the same as Iran murdering a woman for wearing makeup, or for being raped (being a rape victim makes you guilty of infidelity by sharia law)...

I can't decide which of those two is more stupid, ignorant, and vile.

There are of course other issues, but those the most glaring, and Dr Guy already picked apart your post in his first reply to this atrocity.

Maybe this will help:

USA SHOCKS THE WORLD BY EXECUTING A WOMAN

Exactly.  It is not like it was hidden.

Any sob stories for Steven Hayes? Apparently he has mental issues too. I'd throw the switch, valve, or lever myself if I could for what he did to that family.

My point was not that she did a crime. It is clear as daylight and there is no use belabouring the same point. It makes no difference whether a male or a female is involved in the crime. The point was only the degree of cuplability when the person who ACTUALLY KILLED i.e pulled the trigger was awarded only a reduced sentence and this woman was killed.

ted kaczynski was a genius.  If you look at what he did for the field of math (which I have) he did some amazing things. 

If people agrue that someone's IQ is too low and they aren't competent then what about the geniuses that commit murder? Shouldn't they be exonorated too?  I mean think about their IQ is so high that it should be benefitical to keep them.

I'm not being completely serious with that comment.  First, I don't care if the world is shocked by what we do.  The world doesn't dictate what we do.  Second, our justice systems needs some major rehauling but I don't think that will ever happen.

For those who are against execution.  So are you for locking up people for life?  Prison was not originally intended to be that type of punishment.  What I mean by that comment is that prison was not intended to be used to hold a large number of people for life.  Obviously, in centuries past there were people that were imprisoned yet the conditions were far worse on the inside than on the outside of the walls. They also had less people locked up.

I lived in Colorado.  Colorado has the Supermax prison that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in U.S.  I have friends that have worked there.  They tell me horror stories of countless instances of stuff happening.  When they deliver meals, for example, the guards hide behind a shield that's on a pulley system (its not the riot shield for it is longer/thicker probably 5 ft if not longer).  All the guards are doing are just inserting food into a tiny slot. They don't serve utensils of any type so the food is eaten by hands. 

Now what will happen is that inmates will make weapons (knives and darts) out of paper mache.  They will usually put dookie or other body discharges on the tip of the item.  If it hits or nixs you most of the inmates have some type of STD or other transmitable disease that you would rather not get.  The other thing is when you try to put the food in the slot inmates will try to puncture your hand or grab your hand (try to damage your hand in a number of other ways).  Yes, they do have protective gloves but I'm sure you can imagine how hard it is to handle/do anything with protective gloves on.  Obviously, some form of reward system should be set up (I believe they do have a reward system) but let's be honest here you are in solitary confinement for 23 hours and only get 1 hour of a controlled activity. Do you really think a reward system will really work in that situation?

I'm all for forced labor and chain gangs.  Then you have people screaming that's inhumane and what about the people who can't physically work.  Usually other non-sense will come forth besides those two points.  We can't forget the unions (even though less than 15% at most of people in the U.S are in a union) never like that because most of the jobs cut into union jobs.

Most of those people in Supermax prison refuse to be part of a society.  I am against doing what Mexico, Cuba, and China regularly do and send your unwanted to another country.

Even with chain gains and forced labor there are some people who would absolutely refuse to be part of a society and they will do what they want.  What should we do with people like that?

Besides electing them to congress or have them in congress?

Obviously, this article was about a woman who has a low IQ that was executed.  What does people or the world suggest that we do with people who refuse to follow laws of a society?  Who say when 'I get out I'm going to just kill another person, rape someone else again, or destory another family' what do you do with someone with that attitude? 

Oh? because that is what you say. You say that the USA kills a woman, not USA executes a murderer. And then you rant and rave about women's rights and how wrong it is to "kill" (execute) them for no reason other then their gender. You clearly are saying that women are not real people.

As for culpability... she HIRED the guys who pulled the trigger to commit murder. This makes her more guilty. although, that the gunmen got life in prison instead of the death penalty as well is odd... but has nothing to do with gender (most murderers for hire are men, and most are executed). If not being the one who pulls the trigger mattered we would have quite a situation with crime lords just ordering others to kill with impunity. For a society to function a person paying another to commit a crime MUST bear the full punishment of that crime. All of them were guilty of MORE then just first degree murder. She was ALSO guilty of hiring a gunmen to commit murder, they were also guilty of being assassins for hire.

Now, it is possible that she was actually a patsy as some claim, manipulated by the gunmen into going along with the plot... but that has nothing to do with being a woman. Only sexist people who don't consider women to be real people would care to even mention the genders of the people involved. Next time, speak only about the death penalty itself and why you think its wrong and we wouldn't point out how sexist you are, because you wouldn't BE sexist if you do that.