Page 1 of 2
#1
Almost everything with this case blows my mind. How can our legal system work like this? Ill go over the main things I have a problem with.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/23/virginia.woman.execution/index.html

1. She pleaded guilty and still got the death penalty. I thought state appointed had to have some sort of experience, apparently this one didn't. I mean seriously, what kind of lawyer settles a guilty verdict in exchange for a death penalty! It seems like this lawyer wanted his hands rid of the case as quickly as possible.

2. Her IQ was 72. That is close enough to mental retardation for it to be significant. I know people say you can fake IQ tests but given her guilty I doubt it. This type of IQ makes the implication that she was the "mastermind" somewhat invalid.

3. She didn't pull the trigger on either her husband or his son. I know she was there when they were killed and helped plan the murders, but the difference in pulling the trigger and not is huge (well, in most cases at least). The two men she hired killed the husband and son and both had IQ's substantially higher than the wife.

4. Wanna know what the men she hired got? Life in prison! How can these men get less than her?!? They helped plan the murders and got a share of the profits! This completely baffles me.

I think I have narrowed it down to she had perhaps the shittiest lawyer in the world or that Virginia thought it was time to execute another woman after 100 years.
Last edited by Agithor at Sep 24, 2010,
#2
Perhaps she herself wanted to die after "realizing" what she had done..?
#3
ehh. i dont really care. should she have been put to death. No. but nobody should. but its done and its not like she was innocent.
iron FUCKING maiden!!!
#4
Quote by Agithor
Virginia thought it was time to execute another woman after 100 years.

That there's your answer
E-married to BlessedRebel15
Most Attractive Female 2011 ^^
Dark Black Rivers in the WinterTime
Quote by CrunchyRoll
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but everything is against the rules at UG
#6
It's ****ing retarded that the justice system cares who "pulled the trigger". This woman planned it. It was because of her that it happened. It was her intention that caused it to happen. It was her actions that caused the intentional deaths. She wanted it done, she planned it, and she did it. Of course her penalty should be tougher than the two idiots she hired to help her. They were just the hired help. She is the mastermind in as much as she hired them to do her bidding.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I can't help but wonder whether this thread would have been made had the executed been a male.
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
#7
Could you read the entire article first? She tried to kill him before, she was crazy, she wanted his money, i don't think she deserved death, but still, without her, it wouldn't have ever happened.
#8
Ok. Without being there and knowing all the facts, how can you say her punishment didn't fit the crime? You only know what CNN gave you. I think your last sentence is obviously based on bias and misinformation. Obviously the judge and/or jury felt it was appropriate to sentence her to death. Keep in mind, that she's probably had several appeals and each one was turned down. Also keep in mind that the Governor could have pardoned her. He didn't. Obviously, her crime was heinous enough to warrant removing her from the gene pool. Lastly, her accomplices should have gotten the same punishment, but they didn't. Get over it. It's our legal system. It ain't perfect, but it's all we have.
#9
The Death Penalty shouldn't be carried out unless there is no shadow of a doubt as to what happened; ie, the suspect publicly opened fire on a busy street killing loads of people.

In cases like this where it's hard/impossible to tell who's really at fault (though clearly the 3 of them were all messed up) I don't think the death sentence should be used.
#10
Quote by KG6_Steven
Ok. Without being there and knowing all the facts, how can you say her punishment didn't fit the crime? You only know what CNN gave you. I think your last sentence is obviously based on bias and misinformation. Obviously the judge and/or jury felt it was appropriate to sentence her to death. Keep in mind, that she's probably had several appeals and each one was turned down. Also keep in mind that the Governor could have pardoned her. He didn't. Obviously, her crime was heinous enough to warrant removing her from the gene pool. Lastly, her accomplices should have gotten the same punishment, but they didn't. Get over it. It's our legal system. It ain't perfect, but it's all we have.

What the **** was the point of this post?
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
#11
Quote by Vornik
It's ****ing retarded that the justice system cares who "pulled the trigger". This woman planned it. It was because of her that it happened. It was her intention that caused it to happen. It was her actions that caused the intentional deaths. She wanted it done, she planned it, and she did it. Of course her penalty should be tougher than the two idiots she hired to help her. They were just the hired help. She is the mastermind in as much as she hired them to do her bidding.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I can't help but wonder whether this thread would have been made had the executed been a male.

Apparently one of the two idiots had basically seduced her, and encouraged her to plan it. But then chewed up and swallowed the affidavit so it wasn't admissible in court, and killed himself.

EDIT: Think about it for a second though. Think about what kind of person would make someone dead for a measely 250,000? That's only 1/4th of a million dollars. I wouldn't kill someone for a billion dollars. It's just not... normal.
Last edited by captaincrunk at Sep 24, 2010,
#12
Quote by Vornik
It's ****ing retarded that the justice system cares who "pulled the trigger". This woman planned it. It was because of her that it happened. It was her intention that caused it to happen. It was her actions that caused the intentional deaths. She wanted it done, she planned it, and she did it. Of course her penalty should be tougher than the two idiots she hired to help her. They were just the hired help. She is the mastermind in as much as she hired them to do her bidding.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I can't help but wonder whether this thread would have been made had the executed been a male.

+1. I don't agree with execution, but there is no doubt in my mind that this woman deserved to be punished with equal or greater severity than the men who actually carried out the deed.
#13
Quote by Vornik
It's ****ing retarded that the justice system cares who "pulled the trigger". This woman planned it. It was because of her that it happened. It was her intention that caused it to happen. It was her actions that caused the intentional deaths. She wanted it done, she planned it, and she did it. Of course her penalty should be tougher than the two idiots she hired to help her. They were just the hired help. She is the mastermind in as much as she hired them to do her bidding.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I can't help but wonder whether this thread would have been made had the executed been a male.


Read the article before calling her the mastermind. There was evidence to show that the two men were just as much involved as she was. Go ahead, pull the sexist card but I would say if it were a man.
#14
Quote by Vornik
What the **** was the point of this post?



I guess it went above your intellectual level. Don't worry.
#15
this whole sentence is bullshit
Quote by beadhangingOne
What happened to Snake?

Snake?

Snake?

SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE?!


Quote by TunerAddict
you can take my mouse and keyboard from my cold, slightly orange from cheetos, dead fingers


Quote by Baby Joel
Isis is amazing
#16
Quote by Gibson_SG_uzr55
this whole sentence is bullshit

Must...not...sig...
My name is Danny. Call me that.
#17
Quote by KG6_Steven
Ok. Without being there and knowing all the facts, how can you say her punishment didn't fit the crime? You only know what CNN gave you. I think your last sentence is obviously based on bias and misinformation. Obviously the judge and/or jury felt it was appropriate to sentence her to death. Keep in mind, that she's probably had several appeals and each one was turned down. Also keep in mind that the Governor could have pardoned her. He didn't. Obviously, her crime was heinous enough to warrant removing her from the gene pool. Lastly, her accomplices should have gotten the same punishment, but they didn't. Get over it. It's our legal system. It ain't perfect, but it's all we have.


Without being where? All the facts are out now. We know everything the jury knew. Get over it? You can go through life like that, saying "meh, that's wrong" and clicking another article but that won't get you far.. I know posting on a guitar forum isn't going to do jack shit but its worth hearing what other people say.
#18
Quote by Agithor
Almost everything with this case blows my mind. How can our legal system work like this? Ill go over the main things I have a problem with.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/23/virginia.woman.execution/index.html

1. She pleaded guilty and still got the death penalty. I thought state appointed had to have some sort of experience, apparently this one didn't. I mean seriously, what kind of lawyer settles a guilty verdict in exchange for a death penalty! It seems like this lawyer wanted his hands rid of the case as quickly as possible.

2. Her IQ was 72. That is close enough to mental retardation for it to be significant. I know people say you can fake IQ tests but given her guilty I doubt it. This type of IQ makes the implication that she was the "mastermind" somewhat invalid.

3. She didn't pull the trigger on either her husband or his son. I know she was there when they were killed and helped plan the murders, but the difference in pulling the trigger and not is huge (well, in most cases at least). The two men she hired killed the husband and son and both had IQ's substantially higher than the wife.

4. Wanna know what the men she hired got? Life in prison! How can these men get less than her?!? They helped plan the murders and got a share of the profits! This completely baffles me.

I think I have narrowed it down to she had perhaps the shittiest lawyer in the world or that Virginia thought it was time to execute another woman after 100 years.

well, she completely deserves death... eye for an eye mother****er!
but the guys who were hired should be killed too. and so what that she was almost a retard? she planned and payed for the murders of her family, she deserves to die no matter what her IQ.
If a retard killed your parents would you just be like "Oh, its fine they didn't know what they were doing, just let em off the hook please?" i doubt it...
I smoke like Rasta, got hair like pasta
I be sippin' on them shots then bustin' rhymes like Busta


Load up the bong, crank up the song, let the informa call 911
#19
Quote by vanhailin
well, she completely deserves death... eye for an eye mother****er!
but the guys who were hired should be killed too. and so what that she was almost a retard? she planned and payed for the murders of her family, she deserves to die no matter what her IQ.
If a retard killed your parents would you just be like "Oh, its fine they didn't know what they were doing, just let em off the hook please?" i doubt it...


Well, the Supreme Court ruled if your IQ is less than 70 you can't receive the death penalty.
#20
Quote by Agithor
Well, the Supreme Court ruled if your IQ is less than 70 you can't receive the death penalty.

thats the ****ing dumbest idea i've ever heard
I smoke like Rasta, got hair like pasta
I be sippin' on them shots then bustin' rhymes like Busta


Load up the bong, crank up the song, let the informa call 911
#21
Are you just looking for something to be angry about?
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#22
Quote by Agithor
Well, the Supreme Court ruled if your IQ is less than 70 you can't receive the death penalty.


Seems... flawed?
#23
Quote by vanhailin
thats the ****ing dumbest idea i've ever heard

Atkins vs. Virginia
#24
Quote by Agithor
Well, the Supreme Court ruled if your IQ is less than 70 you can't receive the death penalty.


Quote by Agithor
2. Her IQ was 72.


Rules are rules, I'm not going to get all bent out of shape defending someone who played a role in the death of two of her family members.
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#26
Quote by Zombee
Are you just looking for something to be angry about?

I can't have an opinion and post a thread now? Get over yourself bud. Not caring about anything stopped being a cool when your were 14.
#27
Quote by vanhailin
well, she completely deserves death... eye for an eye mother****er!
but the guys who were hired should be killed too. and so what that she was almost a retard? she planned and payed for the murders of her family, she deserves to die no matter what her IQ.
If a retard killed your parents would you just be like "Oh, its fine they didn't know what they were doing, just let em off the hook please?" i doubt it...

IF a retard killed my family I'd probably sue the state for not providing them with adequate assistance. "Retards" generally aren't allowed to just **** around killing people. Someone ****ed up.
#28
Quote by captaincrunk
EDIT: Think about it for a second though. Think about what kind of person would make someone dead for a measely 250,000? That's only 1/4th of a million dollars. I wouldn't kill someone for a billion dollars. It's just not... normal.


Well hey, there's some pros who do this at a couple of thousand per job.
People in the pit take my post way too seriously.

MyAnimeList
7-String Legion

If you have a question PM me and I will always get back to you.
#29
Quote by KG6_Steven
I guess it went above your intellectual level. Don't worry.

Oh boy. Let me explain your stupidity at you.

Quote by KG6_Steven
Ok. Without being there and knowing all the facts, how can you say her punishment didn't fit the crime?

Because the court case has been made public, and it is never necessary to acquire 100% certainty in order to form opinions. If that were the case, it would impossible to hold any opinion about anything, as we are humans and all of our beliefs and perceptions are subject to error.

You only know what CNN gave you.

What part of the article, exactly, do you find suspicious? Let's consider the important facts: the woman was executed; the crime was double murder; there were two accomplices who were not executed; the woman's IQ was tested at 72.

Which of these facts do you suppose CNN lied about?

Obviously the judge and/or jury felt it was appropriate to sentence her to death.

Wow, what a remarkable insight. Source?


Keep in mind, that she's probably had several appeals and each one was turned down.

Right. Because we all know that the judicial system is flawless and beyond reproach. We are all engaged in this discussion because we accept as premise that the decisions made by judges and the judiciary are always ethically and pragmatically perfect.

Also keep in mind that the Governor could have pardoned her. He didn't. Obviously, her crime was heinous enough to warrant removing her from the gene pool.

Yes, because clearly all state governors are perfectly rational beings whose decisions are beyond mortal criticism. If the Governor did not pardon her, then she certainly ought to have to died. This fact is self evident. Right?

Lastly, her accomplices should have gotten the same punishment, but they didn't. Get over it.

This is my favourite part. You come into a thread discussing people's reaction to a controversial court case, and your final statement on the topic is that you agree that the end result was problematic, but that we should "get over it". Let's consider that for a moment. Get over it? All anyone did was say as much as YOU JUST DID. We said what WE thought about the case. Just like you did. Yet it is everyone ELSE that needs to "get over it". This is just unbelievably retarded. Why don't you "get over" our not getting "over it"?

It's our legal system. It ain't perfect, but it's all we have.

Wow. Amazing. Yes, that is right: the legal system isn't perfect. That's entirely the point of the ****ing thread, isn't it Buster? Way to identify the subject of discussion: you can read at third grade level.
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
#30
Quote by Vornik
Way to identify the subject of discussion: you can read at third grade level.


Excuse me sir but your grammar is broken.
People in the pit take my post way too seriously.

MyAnimeList
7-String Legion

If you have a question PM me and I will always get back to you.
#31
Quote by Deadlock Riff
Excuse me sir but your grammar is broken.

Oh what terrible fate: to have omitted an indefinite article at such a time as this!
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
#32
Quote by Agithor
I can't have an opinion and post a thread now? Get over yourself bud. Not caring about anything stopped being a cool when your were 14.


The good news is that if you ever get convicted of murder, you won't have to worry about getting the death penalty.
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#33
Quote by Zombee
The good news is that if you ever get convicted of murder, you won't have to worry about getting the death penalty.


People in the pit take my post way too seriously.

MyAnimeList
7-String Legion

If you have a question PM me and I will always get back to you.
#34
"Tonight, the machinery of death in Virginia extinguished the beautiful, childlike and loving human spirit of Teresa Lewis ..." Rocap said.


Rocap.... Shut the fuck up.

that quote sickens me. Beautiful, childlike and loving? Piss off, she hired a crew of ****ing assassins to kill her husband and son. Was this a totally screwed up case? Yes. But she is still a horrible, horrible human being.

Hell, I'm in school for law on the path to becoming a lawyer, and I sincerely doubt how much effort I'd actually put into defending someone like this. This was an all around piece of shit person. They didn't extinguish a beautiful child like loving person, they extinguished a piece of shit who had her family murdered.
Last edited by Lt. Shinysides at Sep 24, 2010,
#35
Quote by Lt. Shinysides
"Tonight, the machinery of death in Virginia extinguished the beautiful, childlike and loving human spirit of Teresa Lewis ..." Rocap said.


Rocap.... Shut the fuck up.

that quote sickens me. Beautiful, childlike and loving? Piss off, she hired a crew of ****ing assassins to kill her husband and son. Was this a totally screwed up case? Yes. But she is still a horrible, horrible human being.

What loving child hasn't hired a crew of****ing assassins at some point?
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
#36
Who cares if she was a retard? She's a scumbag who had a man and his son killed. Good riddance.
Like podcasts? Listen to these!
BEER!
VIDEO GAMES!
MOVIES/GEEKY SHIT!

_______________________________________________
Last edited by zappp : Today at 4:20 PM. Reason: Suck on my balls, UG
#37
Quote by Zombee
The good news is that if you ever get convicted of murder, you won't have to worry about getting the death penalty.


Good one? Haven't heard a serious retard insult since Junior high. I guess my apathy label got to you then.
Last edited by Agithor at Sep 24, 2010,
#38
Quote by Vornik
What part of the article, exactly, do you find suspicious? Let's consider the important facts: the woman was executed; the crime was double murder; there were two accomplices who were not executed; the woman's IQ was tested at 72.

Which of these facts do you suppose CNN lied about?


It's not what they could have lied about, it's what they could have forcefully left out of the article (though I doubt they did, the article is long enough to assume the contrary). He didn't exactly say they were lying.

Quote by Vornik
Wow, what a remarkable insight. Source?


Why would he need a source for this? It's apparent that either the judge's ruling or the jury's agreement caused this sentence. The lawyer has no absolute power over the sentence, all they do is persuade people.
Page 1 of 2