A Virginia woman is executed: Ahmadinejad weighs in
Teresa Lewis was murdered by the Commonwealth of Virginia at 9:13 pm on Thursday night. Oh pardon me, they don't like to call it murder when the state is involved. I should say she was executed, but the result is the same. She now lies dead. In 2002, Mrs. Lewis hired two men to kill her husband and step-son for a $250,000 life insurance policy. While her husband lay on the floor bleeding to death, she rifled through his pockets for $300 in cash. Yes folks, she did it, or actually hired others to do it--guilty as charged.
Teresa Lewis (2010)
Much has been made of the fact that Virginia only kills women every hundred years or so. The last time a woman was executed in the Commonwealth was in 1912. A 17 year-old black woman, Virginia Christian, was sentenced to death for the murder of her white, female employer. Christian had been accused of stealing a skirt, and after repeated beatings by her employer--a matter of record--the teenager strangled Mrs. Ida Belote to death. Ms. Christian was defended by African American Lawyers who never put her on the stand to testify about the abuse because they feared reprisals in the community.
"According to a letter from her attorneys to the Governor, 'While excitement caused by the news of the tragedy was yet unabated. ‘Her attorneys wrote, "'Great throngs of people, far more than could be accommodated in the courtroom, pressed for entrance to the trial, and the feeling manifested was intense.' "
In other words, they knew she was a goner either way, and didn't want to get lynched along with her. I guess the fact that Virginia shared the Commonwealth's name was of no consequence. This young lady was tortured to death in the electric chair less than five months after the murder.
Virgina Christian (1912)
So back to present day killing. You may have guessed by now that I'm against the death penalty, but let's put that aside for now. Those of you with legal training may correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the woman who was killed last night by lethal injection had several mitigating factors which should have saved her life.
1. Teresa Lewis tested just shy of mentally retarded. Her IQ was 72, two points above the legal definition of mentally unfit for execution (her lawyers should have found a way around that). However, I can accept that there's a line--almost is not enough, but combine this with two other facts of the case:
2. Teresa Lewis pleaded guilty and allowed the judge to choose her sentence. Usually a guilty plea gets the accused a break in sentencing. Why would this plea result in an execution?
3. Teresa Lewis did not pull the trigger, and the two trigger men-- one of whom admitted to manipulating the dimwitted Lewis-- are serving life sentences.
In our system of jurist prudence, the mastermind of the criminal act often bears the heavier burden in terms of culpability. I strongly disagree. If the men whose hands did the deed can be allowed to live, so should she.
So where does Mr. Ahmadinejad fit into this homegrown tragedy? While in New York this week, he accused the US populace and media of hypocrisy, and rightfully so.
"The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the execution paints the US in a hypocritical light. There was little outcry from the federal government over the sentence, although the US has been vocally critical of Iran for sentencing a woman to death via stoning."
Now, let me be clear, it is not my intention to defend Mr. Ahmadinejad or any of the unjust, barbaric practices in his country. The Iranian woman stands accused of adultery, which is certainly not in the same league as murder. And furthermore, if I was sentenced to death, I would prefer a lethal injection to a stoning, as would most I suspect. However, killing is killing, and when it is sanctioned by the state, any state, it is all the way wrong.
**
Further reading- In memory of Teresa Lewis by Bob Newkirch
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Desnee Flakes
Shannon Coulter
MarianneSp
aim
Oryoki Bowl
Dr. Ayala
Salon.com
Comments
The case of Ms Christian is so sad. She was only 17.
I'm glad I live in Maryland.
What have we come to?
Rated with hugs
When do Bush and friends get theirs for the hundreds of thousands of deaths they're responsible for?
Nikki--I didn't know that about selling arms to Saudi Arabia. We are constantly making deals with the devil, and for was...oh yeah, oil.
Joan--I think the trigger men escaping death is what got me the most too. That just seemed like one thing too many.
Linda--thanks for reading me..it is ridiculous.
Myriad--Thanks so much for your note. I neglected to mention your point about stoning not being equivalent to lethal injection. I revised my article to reflect that.
Well done.
Bye bye, I won't miss you.
What do you bleedyhearts think of her victims?
Oh, you don't?
I didn't think so.
Olias--here, here.
XJS--I expected to get some death penalty advocates. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I haven't forgotten about the victims. She was guilty as hell. I'm only saying that life in prison would have sufficed. It's not necessary to kill someone just to ensure that they will never have the oppportunity to kill again. That's what prisons are for.
The Purple Pedant--I will look into her story more to try to find you answer. I only focused on the main, relevant points, but that's actually a good question. Certainly those tests should not be relied upon in this way.
Then there's the question of mental capacity on the part of the defendant. Two points on an IQ test is no more reliable -- maybe even less so -- than polygraph data, and that's not admissible at trial. But I'm not sure that should be a factor at all; this was obviously a pre-meditated double homicide and she was the one who was to benefit from the crime.
The only miscarriage of justice I see, and I agree with you completely Raya, is the fact that the shooters didn't fry. Did they have separate jury trials? If a jury is involved at all, that can easily explain the discrepancies in sentences.
Very interesting post, BB.
Lezlie
Because one score placed her two points over the legal definition of legal competency does not mean that she indeed was.
Thanks for writing this, BB. As always, it is well done!
http://open.salon.com/blog/the_shadow_of_light/2010/09/24/debt_slavery_pays_us_the_death_penalty_does_not
Carl Senna
SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 05:05 PM
From what I saw on the news, HER attorneys provided 'experts' to say that her IQ was that low. Do you not think someone can fake an IQ test and make it lower, especially if the 'expert' was hired by their defender?
A 5-year-old knows that having someone shot is wrong. I don't necessarily believe that her IQ was that low, but I am glad she was executed. Low IQ is no excuse for no ethics. I have worked with people who had IQs lower than 70, and they wouldn't harm a flea and wouldn't participate in ANY way in harming anyone or stealing from a dead person. Many times they actually seem to have better values than other people, because they don't rationalize their behavior and excuse it away.
A case in which low IQ bothers me is the case of the West Memphis 3. From what I remember from a documentary, a boy with a low IQ was browbeaten by police for hours and eventually regurgitated what he was told by them into a confession that caused the convictions of two other people. One of them got the death penalty, and much of the questioning of the boy with the low IQ is NOT on tape. Hours are missing. If I remember correctly, he said something like, "Can I go home now?" after he signed a confession. Many people believe all 3 are innocent.
It is strange how little many people feel for the victims or survivors of the victims in the Lewis case. Instead of saying Teresa shouldn't be executed, I would say that the other men SHOULD have been. I have had a murder in my family, and we were warned by the DA of many cases in which some of the participants in a murder get much less time. It makes no sense, but when they are tried separately, it happens often.
Maybe something else will convince me that you are right about Teresa, but I doubt it.
Delia--I understand your point of view in terms of the testing data. Catherine just made the point that those numbers are heavily dependent on how the test is administered and who is giving the test.
So let’s but the mental capacity thing aside.
I'm against the death penalty for two reasons
1. In my view it's just flat out immoral. It's absurd to think that an intelligent society uses violence to deter violence. Surely we can do better than that. I don't think she should have ever been released from prison, but killing is not our right, just as it wasn't the right of Mrs. Lewis and her crew to do the killing they did.
2. Until we come up with a perfect system of justice; one that will ensure that we never execute an innocent, and one that ensures that we will mete out justice with equanimity regardless of socio-economic status, we shouldn't be killing anyone. Our system is way too flawed and killing leaves no room for error.
I did not mention the victims here, and perhaps that was insensitive, but yes, I do care that those men were killed for the most immoral of reasons; money. Being retarded doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong, but if the law says it means you're not fit to be executed...well the law is the law. Once again, there's a lack of consistency.
As other first world nations have proclaimed; state sanctioned killing is barbaric and beneath us.
he supports death by stoning for adultery? american presidents support death by stealth bomb, for no crime at all.
then there's selling arms to saudi. had to, to balance arms to israel. when it comes to hypocrisy, americans are way out in front. incidentally, this is no new thing. saint ronnie presided over iran-contra and should have hung for it, but violating the constitution is only a crime if you haven't got the support of the great american people. they were hypocrites then, just as you are now.
All the rest of the countries which still allow such barbaric treatment are countries that americans usually characterize as being underdeveloped or terroristic nations.
No, question, just a statement. based on Your previous history of psychopathy, I presume you feel at home with this list: Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
Strange bedfellows you would choose to lie with (well not so strange in your deranged state) - me, I'll choose to hang with the Europeans.
-R-
But, I'm willing to put that aside. As far as her mental capacity, I'm not the one who established that standard. The 70 IQ business is the legal standard in capital punishment cases. This is the law of the land. Okay so she missed it by two points, and even if her lawyers tried to game the system to her advantage. Isn't that what goes on in the legal system all the time? Why shouldn't they try to use what they can to save a woman's life?
Concerns about executing an innocent. You're right, it's not applicable in this case, but since my article was to some extent an indictment of the death penalty, I think it applies. My position was stated clearly, if my tone didn't give me away.
Also about deterrence. I never cited any studies. I couldn't care less about studies in this instance. I'm talking about plain old human nature and how it is molded by societal practices. If my child misbehaves, and I spank her. It may stop the behavior in the immediate term, but what I'm teaching her really...psychically, is that violence is the best way to solve problems. In this sense, the government is the parent.
Now johnny, you don't hurt people when you get mad; that's wrong. Hmmm, but then that's exactly what Uncle Sam does. He kills little bad children when they misbehave, and yes, I'm going with that analogy. I think it fits just fine.
Excuse my spelling and bad grammar...no time to write correctly, but plenty of time to school you :)
I can say with absolute certainty that I would not have the least desire to kill someone who hurt and and killed a dear one of mine. My brain just doesn't work like that. Yes, I want justice, but my energy would be spent on grieving for my the life lost, not hating the taker. In fact this has happened...not that same thing as a child, but my dear cousin was murdered in the state of Washington where I'm from. The state doesn't have the death penalty, and I was glad of it.
Now, if you're talking about defending my child, I would fuck somebody up without a second thought to PROTECT someone I love, but the thing about killing the perpetrator after the person is gone...it doesn't bring them back. If I could do an even trade, hand me the needle, I'm all for it, but given that I can never get back what I lost, let him suffer in prison for life. I want no part of his state-sanctioned murder.
As for the writing: Very well written while being concise and evoking emotion.
What a waste of breathable air she is.
Glad you wrote about it, well written.
Recognizing this and explaining it to the public could do an enormous amount to reduce violence in the long run but instead we just get more demagoguery from the Mass Media designed to encourage punishment after the fact which hasn’t worked in the past and won’t work in the future.
The injustice system in America executes the mentally retarded, people of color, and the poor, but lets Wall Street criminals and War Criminals continue to reap billions as they run our country into the ground murdering and exploiting throughout the world. I am not against the death penalty. It just needs to be applied to the right criminals.
http://open.salon.com/blog/the_shadow_of_light/2010/09/24/debt_slavery_pays_us_the_death_penalty_does_not
Alaska--of course she was poor. An affluent defendant would have had lawyers who were smart enough to have her declared retarded, or incompetent in some way.
Carl--I will have to give your ideas some thought, hadn't considered that. Although I can readily agree that death is waste.
He can conveniently ignore the core of a post, respond with insolence and pretend he's made a response.
The problem is his non-response is viewed as responsive by nobody but him AND allows him to ignore the implied question:
My framework: "No, question, just a statement. based on Your previous history of psychopathy, I presume you feel at home with this list," allowed him exactly the escape hatch he so desperately needed.
A "clever" way of continuing a history of uninterrupted soliloquy.
Good job, genius, let's try a more direct query. Do you geel at home with america being a centerpiece of the list?
I find it interesting that Gov McDonnell and his legal counsel had no qualms about allowing her execution, but oppose abortion on the grounds that all life is sacred.
And, just a footnote, one of the gunmen in this case with whom Lewis was having an affair committed suicide in prison in 2006. Lewis's attorney tried to introduce evidence that he had confessed to being the mastermind of the killings, not Lewis, but no one would allow that evidence to be considered.
Grey Davis of California will always be remembered by me as the politician who executed a paranoid schizophrenic Black man in order to further his own ambitions, which tells us all that it's all about political gain, which is cheaply won when women and people of color can be sacrificed.
And it is not going to get any better.
Um, yes, it IS applicable. Consistency is a basic feature in a just system of punishment, so consistency of sentencing is always relevant.
Interesting that virtually everyone who wants to criticize "research studies" and their flawed methodology about everything from homosexuality issues to political positions all of a sudden hold-up "research" as gospel when proclaiming that the death penalty is not a deterrence.
Who, exactly, are you accusing of what here? You seem to be calling someone a hypocrite, but your ranting is so vague I really can't tell what you're on about.
Intuitively, it only makes sense that there's a deterrence factor.
A lot of things make perfect sense "intuitively" -- so much sense that we don't actually check our assumptions; and when we do, we very often find our "intuition" was wrong the whole time. "Intuitively," it made perfect sense to think the world was flat and stood still. Guess what -- "intuition" doesn't always work.
And, even if it halts a single would-be-murderer, that's good enough for me (and American society).
Sorry, but that's a perfectly wretched way to "measure" the "success" of any policy. ANY policy can be "justified" that way, if only one can find ONE person who can be induced to say it worked. A policy that may kill hundreds or thousands of people in a year needs more than one personal success to be justifiable.
(If I protect myself by threatening to rape the daughter of anyone who threatens me, and one person was deterred by that threat, does that justify my behavior?)