Quote :

"tens of millions of people with IQs in that range... I"

No, the number isn't that high. And I'm not making the claim that extremely low intelligence automatically means they don't know the difference between wrong and right. People with high intelligence kill, too. I'm saying that we shouldn't be surprised when people of such low intelligence make such poor decisions.

This woman is so cold blooded, she confessed willingly

Quote :

"At first, Lewis told officers the shooting was the work of an unknown intruder dressed in black. But she eventually confessed that she and her lover, Matthew Shallenberger, then 22, killed for money."

Clearly, she had a solid plan going into this thing.

Then there is this

Quote :

"But Shallenberger, who dreamed of becoming a mob hit man, later told a former girlfriend in a letter that he had used Lewis because he wanted money to go to New York and become a drug dealer. He committed suicide in prison."

9/24/2010 10:03:55 PM

Maybe they should have taken her to Guantanamo to get some good intelligence out of her....

BTW

Quote :

"Earlier she informed prison staff of details of her final meal: two chicken breasts, sweet peas with butter, a Dr. Pepper and either German cake or apple pie for dessert."

9/24/2010 10:26:50 PM

Quote :

"No, the number isn't that high."

~15 Million people in the US if these numbers are to be believed

http://www.audiblox.com/iq_scores.htm

Quote :

"People with high intelligence kill, too. I'm saying that we shouldn't be surprised when people of such low intelligence make such poor decisions."

Which in no way diminishes their culpability or responsibility for their actions, or the ability to comprehend the wrongness and morality of their actions and the consequences thereof.

9/24/2010 10:34:32 PM

I'm against the death penalty in general...


But given the death penalty is used, this case isn't particularly outrageous or egregious. Seems like if anyone deserves it she does.

9/24/2010 10:55:10 PM

if this woman was borderline mentally retarded, then the two people she conned into doing the killing must have been Simple Jack retarded.

9/24/2010 11:14:57 PM

Quote :

"But Shallenberger, who dreamed of becoming a mob hit man, later told a former girlfriend in a letter that he had used Lewis because he wanted money"

You may rest assured that it is possible to be manipulated and used even when you aren't retarded. Many of my most intelligent friends who have also been in relationships have been manipulated and used.

---

Of course, I've never cared how retarded you are. If you're the kind of person that kills other people in cold blood then obviously society benefits by putting you in the dirt. I'm not out for vengeance or rehabilitation, but I'm all about removing threats.

9/25/2010 2:08:27 AM

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/24/california.execution.brown/index.html

Quote :

"California's last execution was on January 17, 2006, when Clarence Ray Allen was put to death for three counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances. From behind bars, he had helped orchestrate a deadly armed robbery at a convenience store."

It would be worth looking up in the quoted case if the people who actually did the killings also got the death penaly or not.

Quote :

"During the penalty phase of Brown's trial, his lawyer presented psychiatric evidence suggesting that he had emotional problems, including sexual maladjustment and dysfunction "

Nobody wants to fucking own up to their mistakes and face the consequences any more... it is a terrible world we live in. YOU FUCKING RAPED AND KILLED A 15 YO GIRL... but but but, I had emotional problems...


BTW, the system is totally fucked up... he raped a killed a 15 yo girl in 1981 when he was 27 years old... now he is 56 and will be executed for that. WTF? That's like a double punishment. A normal "life imprisonment" typically lasts I guess 30 years, and this guy served that, his whole adult life pretty much, and now will be killed for the crime.

That's just not a good system at all.

9/25/2010 4:36:22 AM

Quote :

"From behind bars, he had helped orchestrate a deadly armed robbery at a convenience store."

What the fuck? I've heard of people running criminal organizations from prison, but those are usually large operations involving a lot of people, money, and power. What does knocking over a convenience store usually net you? Maybe a hundred bucks?

9/25/2010 1:40:56 PM

Quote :

"Earlier she informed prison staff of details of her final meal: two chicken breasts, sweet peas with butter, a Dr. Pepper and either German cake or apple pie for dessert."

Well now I know she is retarded. Who the fuck orders chicken for their final meal?

9/25/2010 8:01:38 PM

Quote :

"No, the number isn't that high."

Just for the record, about 6-7% of the population has an IQ between 70 and 79, which is the borderline category.

That's about 20 million people in the US.

And if you make it 70-89 (IQ), that's nearly 70 million people.

9/25/2010 9:14:51 PM

I think we should especially execute the retarded.

9/25/2010 9:44:12 PM

Quote :

"Of course, I've never cared how retarded you are. If you're the kind of person that kills other people in cold blood then obviously society benefits by putting you in the dirt. I'm not out for vengeance or rehabilitation, but I'm all about removing threats."

spot on.

9/25/2010 10:55:03 PM

Quote :

"If you're the kind of person that kills other people in cold blood then obviously society benefits by putting you in the dirt."

Our current justice system kills people in cold blood. Let's put it in the dirt.

9/26/2010 12:31:23 AM

^ Well maybe if they warmed them up first and then killed them, would that be ok?

9/26/2010 9:50:30 AM

9/26/2010 10:50:42 AM

1. You can score very low on an IQ test and still not be mentally retarded/cognitively disabled.
2. All this business about whether or not she knew the difference between right and wrong (which she admits she did know) is moot. That's a whole nother issue related to the insanity defense, temporary mental impairment, etc...
3. The Supreme Court ruled that it is "cruel and unusual" to execute people with mental retardation--you can still lock 'em up though. The cut-off was set at 70. This woman apparently came in at 72 so, yup, she gets the needle.

A few more things:

1. It's up to the defense to present evidence of mental retardation. So the Supreme Court's ruling is by no means a guarantee that we will never execute a person with mental retardation.

2. The cut-off of 70 is ultimately an arbitrary figure, which illustrates the general arbitrary nature of our justice system. Someone who scores a 71 gets the needle, and someone who scores a 70 is spared? What?

3. If there is something special or unique about people with mental retardation that saves them from the death penalty, then it stands to reason that that same quality could/should spare them from prison. If it's cruel and unusual to kill them, why isn't it cruel and unusual to lock them up?

This is all a legal tactics game:

If it's cruel and unusual to execute people with mental retardation, then it should be cruel and unusual to execute anybody. And many of the people in favor of NOT executing people with mental retardation are also in favor of NOT executing anybody...it's a stepping stone towards eliminating the death penalty altogether.

And there's the rub in this thread. Potty Mouth is disappointed that we executed "an idiot." But nobody else cares about the distinction--why would we care about the difference between 72 and 70? You're either for the death penalty or against it.

[Edited on September 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason : I'm against.]

9/26/2010 11:32:15 AM

I'm ultimately more concerned that two apparently normal individuals (with speculation that one of them was actually a manipulator himself) were the trigger pullers and didn't get the chair but someone who merely provided the idea (allegedly) and sexual and monetary enrichment got the chair. If she had an average IQ I'd still be miffed that she got the chair and not the shooters.

I guess it goes back to the idea that there still must exist an expectations from certain parties that killing someone involved in a murder brings some type of closure. That's the only way I can understand this case where the shooters were given a life sentence and the non shooter was executed. It's...perverted.

ps. The fact that she is near retarded is what makes it even more perverted.

[Edited on September 26, 2010 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2010 12:01:04 PM

Quote :

"BTW, the system is totally fucked up... he raped a killed a 15 yo girl in 1981 when he was 27 years old... now he is 56 and will be executed for that. WTF? That's like a double punishment. A normal "life imprisonment" typically lasts I guess 30 years, and this guy served that, his whole adult life pretty much, and now will be killed for the crime. That's just not a good system at all."

I agree, life in prison should mean that you are there until you die. It shouldn't be a defined length of time, other than when you die, that's it. If a length of time does need to be ascribed to a life sentence, it should be of a length that ensures you will be in there until you die, something along the lines of 1,000 years.

9/26/2010 1:42:26 PM

^^There are plenty of "perverted" outcomes in our justice system.

But it's not hard to understand. When you roll over and testify against someone, you get a lighter sentence. From the article you quoted:

Quote :

"One shooter, Rodney Fuller, made a deal with prosecutors in return for a life sentence. The judge sentenced Shallenberger to life, saying that was only fair because of Fuller’s deal."

http://updatednews.ca/?p=36769

That's pretty easy to understand.

Also, I just read one of her petitions here: http://tiny.cc/x0426 And it has some interesting details:

She waited 45 minutes to call 911. When authorities arrived, her husband was still alive and calling out to her. She falsely accused her husband of beating her. She called a friend in earshot of the detectives and complained about the fact that her stepson had failed to lock the back door (when she was the one who got up and unlocked it). She didn't confess until after a week after the murder. At that point, she had already tried/failed to procure a bunch of money (possibly to flee), and of course, they already knew she was guilty. She also admitted that she ultimately planned to stiff the hired killers and keep all the money ($250,000) to herself. And obviously we already know about the fucking and pimping of her daughter she did, but the worst wasn't revealed:

Quote :

"Investigator Barrett asked Lewis what she and her husband did before they went to bed on the night of the murders. She said that she talked with her husband, and that they prayed together. She stated that her husband went to sleep, and that she arose to prepare his lunch for the next day. After preparing the lunch, Lewis placed it in the refrigerator. She wrote a note on a lunch bag that stated, "I love you. I hope you have a good day." A picture of a "smiley face" was drawn on the bag and inscribed in the "smiley face" was the message, "I miss you when you're gone." Mike Campbell, Julian's supervisor, testified that Julian did not use lunch bags to bring his lunch to work. Instead, Julian took his lunch to work in a blue and white cooler."

If forced to put aside my beliefs against the death penalty and serve on her jury...I suspect I woulda gone with the needle, too...especially when her only mitigating factors were that she was supposedly close to retarded, used drugs (not in the days leading up to or on the night of the murder though), and had "dependent personality disorder" (dependent on people to do murders for her--HA!).

9/26/2010 8:23:36 PM

wow, she was evil to the core

9/26/2010 8:46:52 PM

^^ You keep working backward from the result to come up with justification for how the case played out. It makes no sense, period, that the person who actually pulled the trigger lives and the one who thought it up gets the needle. Sure, she is a heinous evil human being, but...she didn't kill anyone.

9/26/2010 9:01:47 PM

Is Osama bin Laden no less culpable for the attack on September 11, even though he didn't personally hijack one of the aircraft?

9/26/2010 9:26:38 PM

Quote :

"she didn't kill anyone."

only in the most technical sense.

She wanted them dead, and she set the events in motion that caused their deaths.

Whether that means burning their home down and killing her husband and son or pulling the trigger herself, or paying hitmen to off them, the intent and outcome are all the same.

Just because there was one extra degree of separation does not make her any less culpable.

I do agree that it's bullshit that the hitmen got off with a lighter sentence.

9/26/2010 9:29:42 PM

I don't think Hitler killed anyone himself.....

9/26/2010 9:33:29 PM

Quote :

"Is Osama bin Laden no less culpable for the attack on September 11, even though he didn't personally hijack one of the aircraft?"

This is a pretty weak analogy. Hell, rebutting my statement in terms of an analogy is itself weak. No bin Laden didn't fly planes into buildings. He however does continue to push terrorism and he should be brought to justice for that. But to keep this dumb analogy going, would we not burn one of the flyers of the planes that somehow managed to live (they parachuted just before impact) if they rolled on bin Laden? Why would we?

9/26/2010 9:47:07 PM

I haven't read this thread, but reading the OP, i see no reason why the death penalty as it is shouldn't apply to this woman.

9/26/2010 10:11:05 PM

Quote :

"This is a pretty weak analogy."

Actually it's not. Both people planned the killing of people.

9/26/2010 10:26:46 PM

Thats your level for analogy quality?

SHIIIIIIIIIITTTTTSSSS WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAKKKKKK

9/26/2010 10:28:02 PM

dude. how is that in any way wrong? did both not plan the murder of people? I would say yes, they did. So answer the question. Would you let Osama off the hook and only give him life because he didn't actually hijack the planes

9/26/2010 10:35:36 PM

If someone told you to jump off a bridge*, would you do it?



*without a parachute, 500 ft above dry ground

[Edited on September 26, 2010 at 11:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2010 11:00:52 PM

I find murder for hire a particularly detestable crime, and I generally despise the hirer more than the hired. People running around paying others to do their dirty work...it's disgusting.

Here's one that'll really piss you off, Potty Mouth:

This guy Barber kills this other guy and gets caught. Barber claims a dude named Wolfe paid him to do it. Barber got 28 years (for rolling on Wolfe), and Wolfe got the death sentence. Happened 7 years ago, also in Virginia. Wolfe is still maintaining his innocence and waiting to die.

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/11712.html

9/27/2010 5:17:14 AM

Quote :

"dude. how is that in any way wrong? did both not plan the murder of people? I would say yes, they did. So answer the question. Would you let Osama off the hook and only give him life because he didn't actually hijack the planes"

You keep missing the point on so many levels. As usual, you've tried to boil the debate down to 1s and 0s like a good little engineer. Fortunately, law and society is many shades of grey. If any person, the rest of their criminal (or lack thereof) history being ignored, killed someone at the urging from someone else, I'd expect the shooter to get the death penalty before the person doing the urging (extreme circumstances where the urging wasn't threatening death to the shooter, shooters family, not withstanding).

This isn't difficult to understand. I don't understand why society puts some special emphasis on someone who hires someone to kill. They are involved in detestable acts, they are despicable people, and deserve being locked away for a long time but they are ultimately a coward for not doing a deed themselves and absent the actual killer pulling the trigger then no blood is shed.

9/27/2010 7:18:40 AM

I think we put a special emphasis on it because it was/still is committed so widely by the Mafia and other groups who wreak havoc on society. And there's also a class thing going on here. We really can't have rich people hiring out murder just cause they got money, and they can...knocking off witnesses and asserting a dominance alternative the law.

When it's not committed in the context of organized crime, it's often a higher level greed thing, which people tend to find repulsive. It's not like robbing a liquor store where somebody accidentally gets killed. It's actually placing a value in advance on another human being's life and deciding to make that trade. Even if the plan falls through and nobody gets killed, it's a heinous offense.

9/27/2010 7:56:30 AM

the tragedy is not so much that she was executed, it's that the trigger-man wasn't. what makes someone who will kill for pay somehow less deserving of a death penalty than the one who pays?

but that's our justice system: will take expediency and a solid case to nail one person, rather than risking the chance everyone goes free. also, the fact that if you're poor, you're statistically much more likely to get the death penalty than if you're well off.



but if you read her statements, her very coherent expressions of remorse, combined with the fact that she emerged as some local leader in her prison population, it seems quite clear that she is not mentally retarded.

IQ tests are not the objective yardstick people think they are. maybe she's not good at tests. maybe she had a bad day. maybe she purposely feigned stupidity.

if you read her statements, it's very hard to imagine she's retarded in any way, or even particularly stupid. she sounded quite clear.



that said, if i were the Gov, i would have been inclined to grant clemency. however reviewing the evidence, testimony and judicial opinions may have led me to not grant it.

i'm not a fan of the state-sanctioned killing of prisoners, but i'm sure not a fan of murderers either.

in any event, price comparisons of incarceration vs. death is the stupidest argument ever.






[Edited on September 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

9/27/2010 11:45:06 AM

I'm with you. all three should be put to death.

9/27/2010 7:16:18 PM

You're right. We should put to death people that give useful testimony to reveal the truth of cases and secure convictions. That way everyone will want to be forthcoming with information!

9/28/2010 8:37:11 AM

^ thus the dilemma, and the perceived injustice of our judicial system.

it's flawed, but it's the best we've got, and i don't see how the system as a whole can be made any better. which is one of many reasons the death penalty itself is problematic.

which is all intellectually well and good, my reason leads me to oppose the death penalty in all cases. .... but emotionally, it's very hard to get on board with the death penalty opponents, and protest the execution of someone who committed a violent and senseless murder. I'm not going to write letters or go stand outside a prison with candles to spare some vicious killer's life, thereby focusing on the criminal and forgetting the victim.

ugh.

:-(




[Edited on September 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ]

9/28/2010 10:32:27 AM

Quote :

"i'm not a fan of the state-sanctioned killing of prisoners, but i'm sure not a fan of murderers either."

I have a solution.

Privatize it: pay me about a quarter-mil per year and grant me immunity, and I'll kill them...at least really bad, twisted, fucked-up ones like this crazy bitch.

9/28/2010 11:16:06 AM