U.S. to carry out first federal execution of a woman in seven decades
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Justice Department said on Friday it has scheduled the first federal execution of a woman in almost 70 years, setting a Dec. 8 date to put to death Lisa Montgomery, convicted of a 2004 murder.
Montgomery, who was found guilty of strangling a pregnant woman in Missouri, will be executed by lethal injection at U.S. Penitentiary Terre Haute, Indiana, the department said in a statement.
The last woman to be executed by the U.S. government was Bonnie Heady, who was put to death in a gas chamber in Missouri in 1953, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
The Justice Department on Friday also scheduled a Dec. 10. execution for Brandon Bernard, who with his accomplices murdered two youth ministers in 1999.
The two executions will be the eighth and ninth the federal government has carried out in 2020.
The Trump administration ended an informal 17-year-hiatus in federal executions in July, after announcing last year that the Bureau of Prisons was switching to a new single-drug protocol for lethal injections, from a three-drug combination it last used in 2003.
The new protocol revived long-running legal challenges to lethal injections. In August, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled the Justice Department was violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in not seeking a doctor's prescription to administer the highly regulated barbiturate.
But an appeals court held the violation did not in itself amount to "irreparable harm" and allowed federal executions to proceed.
In 2007, a U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri sentenced Montgomery to death after finding her guilty of a federal kidnapping resulting in death.
Her attorney, Kelley Henry, said that Montgomery deserves to live because she is mentally ill and suffered childhood abuse.
"Lisa Montgomery has long accepted full responsibility for her crime, and she will never leave prison," Henry said in a statement. "But her severe mental illness and the devastating impacts of her childhood trauma make executing her a profound injustice."
Bernard's attorney, Robert Owen, said in a statement the federal government misled the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which in 2000 found Bernard guilty of murder. Its decision was tainted by false testimony, Owen said.
"This evidence confirms that Mr. Bernard is simply not one of the 'worst of the worst' offenders for whom we reserve the death penalty, and that sparing his life would pose no risk to anyone," Owen said.
Tags
Who is online
489 visitors
You might be wondering (I was anyway) why this case was prosecuted as a federal crime when murder is almost always a state crime. Murder becomes a federal crime when it's committed on federal property, when some federal officer (like a judge) is the victim, or as was the case here, when the murder is committed as part of a federal crime.
In this case, the crime was kidnapping. But that's also usually a state crime, unless the victim is taken across state lines.
In this case, the killer killed a pregnant woman in Missouri, extracted the baby, and took it to her home in Kansas (where she claimed it was her baby). Thus, she was charged and convicted of the federal crime of kidnapping resulting in murder.
18 U.S. Code § 1111. Murder
But she took the baby across state lines. This is where I'm confused. The kidnapping of the baby didn't result in a murder unless it's because the baby's mother was murdered and then the baby was kidnapped...
I'd make a horrible lawyer
It's all part of the same crime. She kidnapped the baby by killing the mother. That is the kidnapping could only be accomplished by killing the mother. It's a federal kidnapping because of the crossing of state lines, and therefore a federal murder charge.
Getting clearer. I just have to read that a few more times. (not your fault, tho)
Not to excuse this woman, but I see laws like these as just another way of piling on with the power of government. Murder is already illegal. Stealing a baby is already illegal. In every state. Do we really need the federal government prosecuting crimes like this? It’s not as if she would have escaped prosecution by crossing state lines. But federal penalties are often more severe than those of the states.
Maybe there was an issue of jurisdiction between MO and Kansas. The murder happened in MO but the child was taken to Kansas.
But I do think you're right
You and I (or rather our surrogate, the law) are imprisoning this woman, presuming because we (our surrogates) believe she is a danger.
Now we are going to remove this helpless woman from her cell... and kill her.
Morally, we do as she did. We kill people.
So...are you saying that pulling the helpless Timothy McVeigh from his cell and executing him was immoral?
Yes.
Timothy McVeigh got exactly what he deserved. His accomplice/co-conspirator Terry Nicholas received 161 life sentences (for 161 counts of 1st degree murder, 1st degree arson and conspiracy) with no possibility of parole. Also, very well-deserved.
Now, we are waiting for Dylann Roof to meet his fate. He was sentenced to death for his federal criminal convictions and multiple life sentences without possibility of parole on the state murder charges.
It wasn't immoral. It was justice.
"Eye for eye"?
Is your morality determined by a text written thousands of years ago?
Hardly. And morality is subjective.
OK.
Is killing immoral? If so, is the fact that the victim is defenseless an aggravating characteristic?
What are the circumstances? Not everything is black and white.
I don't see any circumstances, other than self-defense, that justify killing.
Punishment for a heinous crime determined through jurisprudence is justification.
Was the killing of Osama bin Laden justified or immoral?
There's the law, there's Biblical morality, there's philosophical morality... Obviously, capital punishment is legal... but that's more or less irrelevant to morality.
What the killer did was wrong, under any of these codes. That's a given... but it's not my topic. IMNAAHO, the death penalty's morality or immorality involves those who command it - the voters. You and me.
The killer's crime is over and done with. The killer is locked up. That story is over, for me.
Now the question is, "What do we do with the killer, over the long run?"
Some people answer, "We should take the criminal from their cell, and kill them, as punishment."
That sounds, to me, like, "Let's kill a defenseless person, to teach them a lesson."
The dead criminal learns nothing, of course - they're DEAD!
We have killed a defenseless person.
If you kill a murderer, when you could have simply turned that person over to the police... you'll be arrested for murder. How is the death penalty different?
That was war. Morality in war is a whole 'nother subject...
If you kill a murderer, when you could have simply turned that person over to the police... you'll be arrested for murder. How is the death penalty different?
Because the person had their days in court/trial by peers, which is in accordance with our constitution.
That's a legal response, and I agree... but I'm looking for a moral response: How is one act morally different from the other?
That only proves my point about morality being subjective. So one cannot use morality as a valid argument regarding the death penalty. But it's not so different than war. In war, you kill an enemy before they kill you. In the death penalty, you kill an "enemy" after they have already killed someone. Where is the difference, other than timing? It's interesting to note that if you kill someone in war, you're a hero. But if you kill someone in peacetime, you're a murderer.
There is societal morality and personal morality Bob. If I were to look into things more deeply, I would guess that a large number of court cases involve conflicts between societal, personal, and corporate morality that need a referee.
The timing is everything.
The only difference in timing is one is about to kill vs one has already killed. But the response is the same.
They are entirely different scenarios. In war, the enemy is undertaking an ongoing effort to kill you or some other person (or people). Therefore, you are defending a life or lives. That is not the case when executing a convicted prisoner.
And a murderer is undertaking (and ultimately successful) an effort to kill someone. The murderer is an "enemy" of society. The murderer is simply executed for their (successful) crime/s.
No. They aren't. They're in prison. They're not trying to kill anyone.
If they're in prison, then that means they did kill someone.
Yes, and? They're not trying to kill anyone at the moment and they can be easily prevented from doing it even if they wanted to. Are you seriously not seeing the difference between being at war and being in prison?
Being incarcerated will do that. But that only means they already killed someone.
You keep restating what everyone agrees on. You're not acknowledging the important ways that war and prison are different.
Seems to me that the DP is a just punishment for this woman
Killing is not a remedy for killing.
You're welcome to your opinion as I am to mine
I haven't ever heard anyone claim it is a remedy for killing.
It is a punishment for killing.
Big difference.
"If you can't do the time (or take the punishment), don't do the crime!"
Under criminal law theory, the death penalty (imprisonment, also) is supposed to serve both as punishment and as a deterrent to disuade others from committing the same or similar proscribed misconduct. However, the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent is widely debated.
In this instance, it's a punishment for killing.
"dissuade"
There can be a factor among jurors who believe religiously that "Thou shalt not kill" might prevent them from convicting even a confessed murderer, even though they might have been questioned beforehand whether or not they agree with the death penalty.
Seriously, Tex?
There's no evidence whatsoever that killing killers dissuades potential killers. We've been slaughtering people since forever, but murder is still here. So let's not pretend that punishment is for the criminal.
Punishment is for us. Punishment allows us to gloat about the evil of others and our own (comparative) goodness. We kill... and then find justification for it.
Practically, sentencing should be driven by society's interests. A dangerous person who is likely to reoffend must be isolated from society.
"An eye for an eye" is kinda outdated...
Yes. That's what I do not understand. If killing is wrong, and in turn deserves death as punishment... where does the evil end?
If we kill a killer, have we not been just as morally abhorrent as the killer?
What's not to understand? Killing (i.e. the death penalty) is punishment for a heinous act committed. There's nothing "evil" about it. That's like saying killing in self defense is "evil." Going on about what is good or evil or morality is little more than an appeal to emotion.
No, we have not!
It's a punishment more than a deterrent.
If it's not punishment, then what is it? What do you consider punishment?
Speak for yourself! I don't feel punished. I see it for what it is: a punishment for a particularly heinous crime. That's it.
Maybe because it is justified.
One could argue that isolation is immoral too.
Depends on the crime. Sometimes, it's well deserved.
I wasn't clear.
Punishment is for our benefit. It allows us to feel superior. It accomplishes nothing (for society) that life-without-parole doesn't do better.
The argument against the death penalty doesn't primarily concern the criminal. It concerns the society that permits itself to commit an act that it condemns when its people commit it.
If killing is wrong, then we should not do it.
Punishment is for the criminal. Punishing criminals is for the benefit of society, as they are removed as a threat to society. Whether one feels "superior" or not is on them. But that's largely irrelevant.
Maybe we'll try again some other time...
What's wrong with right now?
I don't think we're being productive.
I don't know about that. We may not agree on the issue, but we are having a civil dialogue.
Do you think I'm joking?
I clearly stated that it was a punishment. I said nothing about a deterrent. Argue MY words to me, not someone else's.
Well, you sure got THAT ass-backwards. We CONVICT people legally and if sentenced to death, we apply it legally. The "justification" for the death penalty is the conviction for a heinous crime.
IMNAAHO, you put yourself on the same moral level as the killer you kill.
I don't care.
I dont let others opinions rule me
Sail on, sail on...
sing it!
I suppose it's because there are a ot of bible-thumpers in America who believe in "An eye for an eye....." and, after all, there are lots of death penaltes in the bible.
There was a lot of concern about the mix of drugs for lethal injection, but when I think of all the usual methods for "legally" killing people, I doubt that ANY of them (and I'm thinking of the electric chair, the gas chamber, lethal injection, hanging, firing squad) are perfect and there could be some suffering attached. The French had the right idea with the guillotine. A quick slicing off the head and it's all over pretty quick. Since many Americans have such concerns about cruel and unusual punishment, maybe they should use the guillotine. The death penalty was banned many decades ago in Canada. But I understand that in China it's a bullet in the back of the head. Usually within a month or two of the trial - no 16 years of waiting, like the Montgomery situation. But don't be concerned, Americans, at least your country isn't as cruel as Trump's friend Kim, who threw his uncle naked into a pit of hungry dogs.
I think you supposed wrong then.
Death penalties were pretty common in the world, not based on religion.
Extra credit for managing to make something not about Trump about Trump---again.
Does TDS know no bounds?
Well, doesn't THAT explain perfectly why you have to drag Trump into everything!
LOL!
Oh, I thought he was your hero, so it was just to please you. LOL After all, he IS such an unforgettable character, and SO important to the betterment of the world. Of course there is this one thing about him.....
You thought wrong then.
Perhaps next time you assume something about me, you'll just ask me.
I'll assume that it's a mistake for me to bother responding to a trolling comment.
I'll "assume" your TDS is uncontrollable. As shown.
You don't understand? I'm not surprised.
no, I understand that TDS is something apparently uncontrollable. as evidenced.
And THAT one got a lot of traction................/s
Discerning readers could easily spot the flaw in the headline.
Why waste time on a lie?
I've been saying for years that the people who push so hard for the death penalty need to rediscover the guillotine. But you know why they won't? Blood and gore. Those blood thirsty people who want all criminals put to death would never stomach the guillotine.
And I personally think China has the right idea about their death penalty. Bullet to the back of the head? Quick, relatively painless, and cheap
I think the EU has it right: one of the conditions for entry is to not have a death penalty.
I'm really wishy washy on the whole DP thingy. When someone commits a really heinous crime like raping and murdering a child, I believe that drawing and quartering doesn't cause enough suffering.
But what I really hate about some DP supporters, is they want the damn thing carried out for almost every crime. Some murders really don't justify the DP, but these people will clamor for heads to roll. However, mention bringing back the device that does cause heads to roll, and they get pretty green. They have no stomach for that kind of death.
I think we all have a "hang-draw-quarter" reflex, when confronted with barbarism. We're a tribal species. We react vehemently when one of ours is harmed.
I too have that reaction, when a teacher is beheaded.
But then I (try to) think about the corrosion of my own soul, if I cede to the temptation of eye-for-eye...
The French didn't think the guillotine was barbaric. In fact the last beheading they carried out was in the late 70's or early 80's...then they abolished the DP.
Wait...why am I telling you that?
Seriously, when was the last execution the French carried out? I'm pretty sure the last public one was in the 1930's
Hamida Djandoubi (Arabic: حميدة جندوبي ; September 22, 1949 in Tunis, Tunisia – September 10, 1977 in Marseilles, France) was a Tunisian sentenced to death penalty in France. He was a Tunisian agricultural worker and convicted murderer. He moved to Marseille, France, in 1968 and six years later he kidnapped, tortured and murdered 22-year-old Élisabeth Bousquet, his former girlfriend. He was sentenced to death in February 1977 and executed by guillotine in September that year. He was the last person to be executed in Western Europe,[2] and he was the last person to be executed by beheading anywhere in the Western world. He was not however, the last person sentenced to death penalty in France. Marcel Chevalier served as chief executioner.[3]
I was half right. But that last person sentenced to death...was he ever executed?
There were seven men on death row when the death penalty was abolished. Their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.
When did France abolish the death penalty? I know that they stopped public executions sometime in the 30's but they kept executing right up to 1977
The last public execution occurred in 1939. The last execution in 1977. Abolition 1981.
Thanks, Bob. You know I could have googled all of that, right? But this was more fun
Google-in-French is easy...