True.
There is a lot to this case. It was a crime of passion. The person who did the actual murder received a lighter sentence. The woman was a mother and was remorseful. I could have found sympathy in this case. I found it moving that she sang Amazing Grace right before her execution. I think there were some mitigating factors in this particular case. Mrs. Gissendaner clearly made some tactical errors by not agreeing to plea bargains which ultimately cost her life. This is sad. I continue to support the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes. But I think it is instances such as these which will help bring the end of the death penalty in this country.
The trouble with such a sweeping statement is that there are genuinely compelling reasons to execute some people; for instance, why do we allow armed insurgent revolutionaries such as Nidal Hassan to remain in prison where they have a lifetime to incite rage and hatred against the nation among the other prisoners who will receive parole and go out to inflict mayhem on another group of victims? Same with the theater shooter and many, many other terrorist mass murderers. They need to be extinguished for the good of the entire nation.
“But I think it is instances such as these which will help bring the end of the death penalty in this country.”
This is ultimately the most important public policy issue that this case implicates. Gross disparity, coupled with errors about factual guilt and incompetent attorneys who urge clients to go to trial against hopeless odds, all converge on the conclusion that the criminal justice system is a blunt instrument which is so deeply flawed that there should always be the possibility of reversing misguided sentencing decisions when they occur. This means, of course, that some defendants who deserve the death penalty will receive life sentences, but that is a reasonable price to pay as long as such an error-ridden system operates on what is essentially a hit-or-miss basis. Yes, under present circumstances, and until or unless substantial improvement occurs, an enlightened society would abolish the death penalty, as has occurred in some other developed countries. To do otherwise would be tantamount to remaining in the primitive, backward state that this case reflects.
Her first error was murdering her husband. Perhaps you can find enough sympathy to bring her innocent husband back from the grave. I am willing to go way out on a limb and say that he would appreciate that.
I empathize with your concern about the death penalty in this case. But I can’t agree with some of the reasons that you might oppose its use here. The fact that she was a mother is tragic, but should it mean that no mother should ever face the death penalty? Remorse is commendable, I suppose, however I don’t think that after the fact actions can erase what was done or the intent at the time. And of course remorse makes perfect sense— when you get caught. I am happy that she appears to have come to have faith in God, and to partake of the Amazing Grace Christ provides, even to killers and other sinners (such as I).
As for plea bargains, I know that they are necessary in order to keep the criminal justice system going, but in cases of capital murder, I am not sure justice is best served by such deals.