Posted on 10/26/2007 11:47:50 AM PDT by Huntress
Jurors unanimously agreed today that Lisa Montgomery be put to death for killing Bobbie Jo Stinnett and stealing her unborn daughter nearly three years ago.
The federal jury deliberated about five hours. If jurors had not reached a unanimous decision in favor of the death penalty, Montgomery would have received life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Before the decision was announced, the judge ordered spectators to control their emotions or leave the courtroom.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
One thing I appreciate about my old stomping grounds is that people out in the midwest have little tolerance for such barbarous acts.
The same type of death she dished out,,
My conscience is torn about the death penalty, too. However, I do agree with the jury’s decision in this case. Such a wicked woman.
holy sh.. that’s scary.
I have none. If a murderer, or say a child rapist is put to death there is a 0% statistical chance of recidivism
Not only do “dead people tell no tales”, they don’t commit crimes either.
Amazing!
EEEEWWWW!!!! Don’t tell me there are TWO of them walking around!!! ))))))SHUDDER((((((
I used to have a problem with the death penalty. I don’t anymore. I no longer am confused about whether the criminal cared about imposing the death penalty on their unsuspecting victim.
When people are murdered, people forget about the person that was murdered and whether that person wanted the death penalty.
That said, they have to be careful that their is no question that the person sentenced to death actually committed the crime.
If they can present evidence like DNA, they should be given the chance to do so.
This woman deserves the punishment. She will be alive far longer than her victim.
The older I get, the more mixed feelings I have about it too. The functional, rational side of me has no problems with it. But I always try to match up what I think and believe with scripture and I’ve never been absolutely sure that it is consistent with scripture. But it may be, it’s just that I’m not sure. Someday, I really need to study scripture with just that question in mind.
EEEK!
What a miserable, evil looking thing. Her soul really “shines” through.
What she did is wicked beyond belief.
Her lawyer described her as "sick," apparently as a reason that she should not be executed. And yet, some people will argue that innocent unborn children with "genetic defects" should be killed. I don't get it. She has proven that she cannot function in human society. This jury definitely reached the right decision here.
This is subhuman. It should be sent to a middle eastern country where they have many methods of delivering the death penalty.
The Bible speaks about societal laws, being judged by a jury of your peers somewhere. There is no rule against the death penalty. God warns that that judgment shouldn't worry you, it's the one that comes next that should.
Unborn children are innocently executed. Murderers who kill innocent people deserve to be put to death so they cannot kill again and so that society can extract justice in the name of their dead victims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that you’re probably right, but I want to make sure. There’s a lot of issues where there’s no “rules.” We just have to seek out who God is and how He works in the lives of men.
uncanny...which witch is which?
If the murderer decided that the death penalty was acceptable for him to impose upon his victim (usually in a horrible manner), then the murderer gives up his right to say that the death penalty is not also acceptable for society to impose upon him. IOW it is simply using the murder’s own standards toward the murderer!
Even society at large should see the simplicity of that death penalty Golden Rule logic....”Hey...the murderer was pro-death penalty for his victim, so what’s the problem here?”
I totally agree. Those that are against it get caught up in the criminal more than they feel for the victim. Why?, because the victim is no longer alive to tell of their terrible fate.
You have to put on the shoes of the victim. Nothing justifies murder.
It can be righted only by the murderer to end up suffering, most of the time, a far more humane end than their victim.
We can only mete out justice by human standards. In the end, all go to their maker. It is up to the criminal and God from that time on.
HOLY CRAP!!!!!! DAMN!
Has anyone read about the details of the crime scene? It was gruesome. The death penalty was made for people like Lisa Montgomery.
I’m sure some idiot judge will overturn the verdict. If that psycho woman in Texas who drowned her 5 kids didn’t get the death penalty, why would we expect it to stick for this nutjob?
Almost 20,000 people were murdered and 1.3 million people violently assaulted in the US in 2006.
80% of these crimes were committed by repeat offenders, criminals who had been previously convicted of violent crimes.
There were only 53 criminals executed in that same time.
Every time a violent criminal is put to death, it saves the lives of 18 people on average.
Between 1967 and 1977 there were no violent criminals put to death and the homicide rate doubled.
Something to consider.
For those that are opposed to the death penalty, perhaps you should work to change the parole laws so that “life in prison” means “life in prison” -
otherwise, you’re simply sentencing these criminals’ future victims to death instead of the criminal himself.
A minor correction to the assumption in your post.
The child lives. The mother was killed.
In other words, Thou shall not kill, was changed from , Thou shall not murder. I believe the original was in Greek.
We had a visiting minister use the original Greek word and explain how and why it was changed. It was a long discourse
and hard to remember it all. You might check with a Bible historian.
Also we Christians should realize that in God’s time he will destroy all evil and from what I understand the innocent will at that time also suffer.
Karma baby, what goes around,,,comes around.
I remember when this story came out. I don’t think she’ll actually be executed though. While Missouri is not a weak-kneed anti-DP state, you know the media will give the perp full-scale sympathy treatment if an execution date actually comes up. If it’s a Dem in the Governor’s Mansion, there’s no way he won’t commute the sentence to “life”.
Thanks both for your comments—drawing attention to that contrast was my point exactly. Hillary’s minions kill the defenseless children and leave the ‘mother’ alive. In the case at hand the wretched killer ‘at least’ picked on someone her own size.
Both are horrible scenarios—but Hillary is reaping political-career profits from the continuing deaths of the defenseless and helping tax-subsidize millions of baby killings at Planned Parenthood.
Lisa will kill no more and isn’t running for political office.
I would go along with life if it meant life as you said, but I have trouble with paying for the scum for the rest of their lives.
Excellent. The death penalty is far from being given out lightly.
People against it should consider the people that are the victims. They should consider the future victims of those that get out after committing murder.
Murder is taking the right to life of another, no matter whether the person being murdered wronged you, got in your way, or was just a vehicle for someones perversion.
It is a just punishment in these instances.
The murderer may really come to Jesus, but it is our job to punish those who take away the rights of another to live in the society of man, we cannot know if theey are truly repentant, they can take that up with God.
I'm against it, not because of what it does to the recipient (I don't grieve for their deaths), but because of what (I think) it does to us.
Seems to me it was the right decision.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction (bribe/compensation) for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num%2035:9-34;&version=9;
Either you're using invalid statistics, or you're advocating capital punishment for "violent crimes" in general. Either way, your conclusions aren't logically supportable.
The legitimate statistic would be based, not on "violent crimes," which is a very broad definition, but rather on the number of people who were incarcerated for murder, released, and then went on to kill again.
Note, BTW, that killing violent criminals is not the only way to prevent them from committing murder out in the free world. Life-long incarceration fulfills the same purpose. You might argue against that for reasons such as cost, but that's not a particularly compelling reason to decide on whether or not a criminal should live or die.
Twigs: this is the sort of thing I was talking about when I talked about what it does to us.
It actually costs less to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives than to execute them, but with some reform, say,
2 appeals maximum, maximum 1 yr from the failure of the 2nd appeal for the execution,
we could get the costs down.
I pray that I never find out. However, I hope that I would be rational and objective enough after such an event to make my decision based on the relevant facts, laws, and moral values, rather than on my emotions.
Her ex-husband wanted me to write the book on the case. I thought about it but hey, they live in Kansas.
Lisa's daughters are great kids, and they regularly send me invites to their myspace pages and updates on their lives.
This death penalty gives me pause because of my relationship with her daughters. But if ever a crime deserved the death penalty it's this one. Her daughters were so worried about their mother getting the death penalty.
Below is a link to my most recent true crime post...at the very end is a list of all the Blog posts I'd main regarding this crime. My Blog is getting big hits and has been all week...today it's about to burn out.
If it were me I would, of course, want the perp dead in a painful and gruesome manner. That's only natural.
The question, however, is not what you or I want, but whether it would be right to actually carry out such an act -- either by doing it ourselves, or by delegating the responsibility to somebody else.
The whole point of the rule of law is that it (properly) bases justice on an impartial basis, based on moral principles arrived at in calm reflection; as opposed to the sorts of extreme punishments that come from letting emotional responses rule our actions.
Good post, thanks. The 80% makes me angry - obviously the repeat offenders correctly assess the costs (to themselves) do not outweigh the so-called benefits of indulging in their crimes.
Montomery was walking around with the baby and her husband was clueless about what had happened?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.