home

Georgia Execution: The Death Penalty Resumes

By Jeralyn, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
Tags: death penalty (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

William Earl Lynd was executed in Georgia last night.

Lynd's execution at 7:51 p.m. was the first since the court ruled April 16 that the three-drug protocol most commonly used in executions by states and the federal government did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Last week, a former death row inmate was freed in North Carolina. The Death Penalty Information Center reports:

Around the country, the 129th person was recently freed from death row in North Carolina. Levon Jones was exonerated after his conviction was overturned because of inadequate representation. The state's star witness has also recanted her testimony implicating Jones. The District Attorney dismissed all charges against him on May 3. Jones is the sixth person to be freed from death row in the past 12 months, the eighth person from North Carolina, and the 3rd from North Carolina since December 2007. The last four inmates who have been freed from death row in the U.S. are black.

The New York Times reports questions of fairness remain.

< A Drug War Outrage | Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Georgia Execution: The Death Penalty Resumes | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This puts last night in perspective (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    I fear this will not get much play in the TV media as they are obsessed with last's nights events.  I thought my day could not get worse until I saw this...we need to end the death penalty NOW!

    Once again ironic (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    Amidst the language of hope and change, the despair that is borne from social injustice continues.  The death penalty is brutality in all its manifestations.  The context with last night was horrific.  

    So basically from some of the comments I (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    gather that the Death Penalty (execution of convicts) is a matter of revenge and not of justice or deterrence.  Now what I would like to see those who feed us those horrible stories of the way victims being brutalized etc is giving us some data that shows us that countries that abolished the Death Penalty have had a surge of murders and horrible crimes.  Has there been a decline of murders since the Death Penalty was re-instituted in the US?  

    Of course revenge plays a part in it. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:45:51 PM EST
    Why shouldn't the victim's friends and family be allowed to extract some from the killer??

    And what would be "justice" for the friends and families of the victim of some killer?? There can be  no "justice."

    And why are you even concerned about the punishment meted out to a convicted killer??

    My limited belief in LWOP is based only on not wanting to execute the wrong person, not on any concern for the killer.

    [ Parent ]

    Today's New York Times (none / 0) (#1)
    by The Maven on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    has a major front-page article on what this all means, "Executions Resume, as Do Questions of Fairness".  The principal focus of the piece seems to be on the issue of whether adequate representation is being afforded to the accused in capital cases, particularly in North Carolina.  The Levon Jones case is featured prominently.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#4)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:48:16 AM EST
    The question they're posing is one of fairness, rather than whether or not the government should be putting people to death.

    I guess the NY Times doesn't want to discuss that one too thoroughly.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually the "state" (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    started executing people as surrogates for their citizens, thus preventing personal blood feuds, etc.  Outside of that the state has no real interest beyond demonstrating to their citizens a desire to provide personal protection against law breakers.

    The fairness issue is easy to prove, and any reasonable person will see that LWOP is a much better sentence given that it lacks the finality of death.

    However, many who would agree with LWOP suspect that phase two would be for defense lawyers to demand release after X number of years because LWOP is inhumane. (See the many comments re Supermax.)

    [ Parent ]

    There was a time when (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    some cultures, had the weregild

    Your legal explanation is wrong. The prosecution and sentencing of offenders is done because the offender has hurt society by his actions towards the victim(s) and therefore society is defending itself by the actions it undertakes through the judicial branch of law enforcement.

    That's why there is a crime considered worse than the murder of an individual, treason, since that is a direct attack on the safety of all who compose a nation-state.

    As for LWOP, I'm not paranoid about the lawyers overturning it, YMMV.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    Actually I was going back a bit farther than the weregild. And while the justification is an offense against society, the reason was to stop blood feuds.

    All else grew from that point.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh yourself (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:49:17 PM EST
    Actually I was going back a bit farther than the weregild.

    Roman law?  Greek institutions?  The Code of Hammarabi?

    The weregilt was instituted to prevent blood feuds, so your theory:

    And while the justification is an offense against society, the reason was to stop blood feuds.

    Doesn't make sense, or the weregilt wouldn't have had to be created in the first place.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually all the way back (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:28:54 PM EST
    to when mankind stopped being hunter gathers and started farming..

    [ Parent ]
    Heh again (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:03:07 PM EST
    Here's an example of the death penalty from a hunter-gatherer culture:

    The most terrifying physical inquisitors in aboriginal Australia are the little known Red Ochre Men... It is astonishing how little is known by outsiders of the Red Ochre Men. Many whites who have learned about everything else of aboriginal life have not even heard of them, so well enforced is the omerta among even those of the aborigines who wish the whole organisation ended... The cult is nearly universal in aboriginal Australia... In the deserts the Red Ochre cult moves right across the land in the course of a year, carrying its own ceremonies and myths, touching all tribes in its path, and working as a kind of ecclesiastical circuit court embodying all processes of the religious judiciary.

    The function of the court is to punish law-breakers -- not so much the perpetrators of everyday misdemeanours like spear fights and wife-beating, but those felons who blaspheme the laws incorporated in the myths. If, for example, the young man on trial in Meekatharra had really shown the tjurunga [the law sticks] to women, his only chance to escape the Red Ochre Men would have been to flee from his tribal jurisdiction and live in a city or large well-policed town among other fugitives from their honour and their heritage.

    The punishments involved do include the death penalty -- but that is not the worst. Far worse is when the Red Ochre Men destroy the offender's soul, so that it is of little consequence if he goes on living physically. Sometimes death is readily accepted by the offender as the price for leaving his or her soul intact.

    Wistful theorizing went out of style in anthropology about 150 years ago, BTW..........

    [ Parent ]

    And your point is??? (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:43:54 AM EST
    References to a cult down under has nothing to do with hunter gatherer tribes becoming farmers 10,000 years ago.

    Must be an early silly season in CA.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh for the third time (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dark Avenger on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:46:22 AM EST
    References to a cult down under has nothing to do with hunter gatherer tribes becoming farmers 10,000 years ago.

    I didn't say it did, but it's an example of the death penalty being applied in a hunter-gatherer culture.

    According to your version of  "anthropology", that can't be possible because the Aboriginals in Australia never entered the farming phase of civilization before the continent was discovered and colonized by the English.

    Must be an early silly season in CA.

    Must be a very early stupid season in CO, otherwise you'd have something to back you up besides snark and stupidity.

    Gotta link to your 'theory'?  

    No?

    Typical liberal arm-waving, thanks for showing everyone what it looks like..........

    FWIW, the legal theory I outlined in my post above was related to me by a gentleman who at the time was the official Coroner of Mobile County, someone whose knowledge of law I would place over any non-lawyer any day.

    I'm just here to tell the truth, PPJ, I'm sorry you find my doing so disturbing.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you really think (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    that referencing an isolated group of people regarding the formation of justice systems by the states 10000 years or so an intelligent argument???

    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    Heh to the 4th power (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dark Avenger on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    You've yet to cite anything to back up your theory except attempting to heap scorn on my example.

    That's like the old adage about pounding the table, when you have neither reason or facts on your side.

    I would suggest perusing the archives for your comments and mine before anyone judges either of us for intellegence, etc.  

    Here's a starter:

    PPJ - granted there is a lot of dissemination from the leftists here, but aren't you twisting the facts somewhat in terms of Byrd using the "n" word? I watched the interview (both parts) and he doesn't use it except in a rerun clip from the incident in 2001. Ergo, he only made that mistake once (publicly).

    TTFN


    [ Parent ]

    You seem to think that I value (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:03:03 PM EST
    your opinion.

    Why, after all these years do you do this? Isn't insanity often defined as doing the same thing while expecting different results?

    As to why I don't, I remind you of this:

    Heh
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    ......you show your true colors when you write:

    "People will think either I'm crazy or used to be in Naval Aviation, and I don't know which one is worse."

    Nice attack on a group of people that have sacrificed to protect the country.

    Now tell us how you support the troops.



    [ Parent ]
    Heh to the 50th power (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dark Avenger on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    I've been sucessful in demonstrating why your opinion should be disregarded, your interpretation of that as being an interest in changing your opinion is risible but irrelevant.

    Why, after all these years do you do this? Isn't insanity often defined as doing the same thing while expecting different results?

    Well, to think that you'd make a comment with common sense in it would be at the least, excessively optimistic, but you may be correct to say that it could be a bit kooky to be so unrealistic.

    I remind you of this:


    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:49:48 PM EST

    But you won't try, you'll just keep running your mouth about something that has nothing to do with the facts.

    Why don't you tie a white towell to a fishing pole and wave it?

    I think I was being realistic here.

    Was the above a suggestion drawn from your own  
    real-life experience?

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    In the past I have noted time and again (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    how you have nothing to say, just showing up late and making some trivial point. I call it ankle biting.

    My point was, is and will be that one of the key reasons that nation states enacted laws against murder, and other crimes, was to prevent blood feuds.

    Your inane comments prove nothing about that and I really wonder why you bother.

    I thought that reminding you of your position regarding our military might be enough to shame you into silence.  I see that it is not.

    Yadda yadda DA, by your words you are known.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, you've manufactured reasons (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    not to pay attention to my posts in the pasts, that you return to a failed tactic demonstrates your intelligence better than anything I could write.

    just showing up late and making some trivial point. I call it ankle biting.

    "In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, " Five," to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg."

    A. Lincoln

    Now that we've gotten that out of the way......

    My point was, is and will be that one of the key reasons that nation states enacted laws against murder, and other crimes, was to prevent blood feuds.

    You've shown nothing to support your theory despite numerous opportunities to do so, that is a fact.

    That you spin your wheels and turn to insult and selective quoting when you realize you're not making any headway makes your piteous cries of "ankle biter" and 'late poster' risible at best, if not pitible in the least.

    Your inane comments prove nothing about that and I really wonder why you bother.

    You'll find your answer here:

    My guiding principle in commenting here is the following:

       

    I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

    I didn't know that it apparently is skin off your nose if I do, and you appeared to be the more bothered of us here, FWIW.

    I thought that reminding you of your position regarding our military might be enough to shame you into silence.

    But you're not ashamed of calling me a coward with your 'white towell' comment.  LOL!

    That you want me silent demonstrates your devotion to the notion of 'free speech', especially when it comes to POV that you don't share.

    Yes, this is so

    shameful    :

    No, I think the point was I made an insult directed towards you in return for your remark about my 'waving a white towell', and I explained my remark and myself in an earlier post I linked to  and of course you haven't read so I'll have to post it here:

       

    FYI, the first friendly face my mother saw after the surrender of Japan in her concentration camp in China was an American soldier, so your 'knowledge' or 'accusation' is again free of any relationship to reality as your previous attempts to 'tell' me about myself.

        You do worse than insult the military, you take the side of a sworn enemy of the US who wants them to stay as targets in Iraq,<subliminal tag>Bin Laden</subliminal tag> because your fearless leader can't admit to making a mistake and insists on continuing it with American blood and treasure without regard to the consequences or realities of the situation.

        Excuse me while I watch The Cartoon Network to refresh my intellect after dealing with yours.

    TTFN.

    I see that it is not.

    I'm here to tell the truth to you, PPJ, no matter how uncomfortable, low, snarky, bitter, mean, angry, etc. it makes you.

    Yadda yadda DA, by your words you are known.

    And I repeat, I'm not worried if someone does a casual perusal or serious investigation of our respective comments here, that you seem to dislike the idea tells everyone here all they need to know.

    [ Parent ]

    yawnnnnnn (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    BTW (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:04 PM EST
    Your insult towards the military stands there by itself. No explanation can cover up what you wrote.

    [ Parent ]
    No cover-up intended, Heh to the 80000 power! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:14:37 AM EST
    unless this is what you don't want folks to read:

    But you won't try, you'll just keep running your mouth about something that has nothing to do with the facts.

    Why don't you tie a white towell to a fishing pole and wave it?

    "Look at me! Look at me! Pay no attention to the interview!!

    (snicker snicker)

    You do know more about running your mouth about something that has nothing to do with the facts than I do, so don't say I never say anything positive about you around here :>)

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    Your insult to the military can not be covered up.

    It defines you.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh to the 900000th power (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    Just as your snarkiness, insults about intelligence, common sense, and the other faults on display in your comments here and elsewhere define you.

    Can't find your 'white towell' still?  

    Scared of what I write here about you?  Is that why in a previous post you expressed the futile wish to 'silence' me?

    Thanks for showing us what you're made of, PPJ.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    Hehe (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    Your insult of our military stands there for all to see.

    It defines you.

    [ Parent ]

    Tee-hee-hee! As you so aptly wrote earlier: (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:23:44 PM EST
    Why, after all these years do you do this? Isn't insanity often defined as doing the same thing while expecting different results?

    Your attempts to silence me define your 'social liberalism' for all to see.  That you don't understand this makes it all the funnier, YMMV.

    I'm here to tell you the truth, PPJ, whether you act on it or not is beyond my control.

    [ Parent ]

    hehehe (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:22 AM EST
    Silence you?

    Why would I want to silence you?

    Your insult of our military defines you. I need do nothing but remind.

    [ Parent ]

    hehehehehe, so you didn't write this?: (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM EST
      In the past I have noted time and again (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST

    I thought that reminding you of your position regarding our military might be enough to shame you into silence.

    Silence you?

    Why would I want to silence you?

    You should talk to someone about this short-term memory loss problem of yours, or ask JM to find out who has been commenting in your name.

    TTFN!

    [ Parent ]

    Well, the Paper (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Maven on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    addresses that issue in an editorial today, which pulls in the fairness point as well:
    Roughly 15 death row prisoners are scheduled to be put to death between now and October, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. This flood of executions is the result of the Supreme Court's ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a troubling form of lethal injection. The next few months, as states put their machinery of death into overdrive, are an ideal time for the nation to rethink its commitment to capital punishment.
        --  --  --
    These scheduled executions come at a time when many Americans are, rightly, turning away from capital punishment. We believe that the taking of a life by the state is in all cases wrong, but it is particularly so with the deeply flawed system that exists today. Many defendants lack adequate legal representation at their trials, race distorts who is sentenced to death for what crimes and juries are "death qualified" -- jurors with moral objections to the death penalty are removed. As the recent rash of DNA exonerations has shown, judges and juries too often sentence innocent people to death.
    So I think it's fair to say that the NYT's position on the death penalty is actually pretty clean and clear.

    [ Parent ]
    Good. (none / 0) (#6)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    That makes me feel better. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Barbaric (none / 0) (#3)
    by Leftwing on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    The US is so barbaric with its state sanctioned MURDERS. Pretty sad indeed.

    JJ
    http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com

    Actually they are executions (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    And why not call them that rather than using an inaccurate description that your foes will use against what arguments you can muster?

    [ Parent ]
    How about the term (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:28:26 PM EST
    lynching? As in, when a certain moral cretin Governor asigns legal representatives with the bare minimum of criminal defense experience to represent capital defendants?

    Of course, people tailor their rhetoric to serve their cause, e.g., one mans "freedom fighter" is another mans "terrorist" etc. You remeber how it works.

    [ Parent ]

    I see that you still lack the common sense (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:32:34 PM EST
    that would allow you to use the accepted terminology and be taken seriously in a discussion.

    Nothing changes, eh??

    [ Parent ]

    Murkins Support Death Penalty, EVEN IF Innocents (none / 0) (#7)
    by tokin librul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    are condemned.

    I cannot find the link, but iirc, in Harper's or The Nation about 10 years ago, I read a report on a survey of Murkins which found that around 70% of "USers" support the death penalty, even if it means that the some innocents will inevitably be killed by the state.

    Which is just plain social sickness...

    Horrible. I lit a candle (none / 0) (#10)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:05 PM EST


    LA Times Editorial on recent case there (none / 0) (#12)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM EST
    The LA Times ran an editorial today about the recent California Supreme Court Decision (pdf) in the case of Adam Miranda.

    Miranda was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982.  His direct appeal was denied in 1987 and three state habeas petitions were denied in 1987, 1989 and 1993.  When he got to federal court the federal judge ordered discovery and lo and behold in the DAs file all these years is a letter.  The letter is from an inmate who testified against Miranda in the penalty phase of his trial, where the jury is deciding on a death or life sentence.  The DA's only argument for death was that Miranda had committed another murder.  But in this letter the DA's witness says he committed the murder.

    Now lot's of people complain that the death penalty process is too slow.  Had it been a bit faster Miranda could have been executed based on this lie.

    One other thing.  While the NYT article focuses on bad defense lawyers, of which there is no shortage, those cases also almost all involved prosecutorial or police misconduct, as was present in Miranda.  This sort of thing is almost never punished.

    The death penalty is wrong for any number of reason, first and foremost because it diminishes us as a society by diminishing the value of human life.   But whatever you may think of the moral argument, the system is far too deeply flawed to allow it to take lives.

    So since he killed only one (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:48:37 PM EST
    he gets a walk.

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush kills (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    thousands 'n he's yer he-ro.

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    yawn (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:58:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    William Earl Lynd, a white guy, (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:40:46 PM EST
    shot his girlfriend in the face. She then crawled the porch, where he shot her again.

    He then put her bloodied body in the trunk of his car and drove around looking for a good spot to bury her.

    When he heard noises coming from the trunk he stopped and put a third bullet in her, finally killing her.

    After he buried her, he drove to Ohio where he shot and killed another woman while robbing her home on Christmas day.

    Then he drove to TX apparently with the intent to kill another woman from his past, but was talked out of it by his brother there.

    Not exactly the best poster child for stopping the DP.

    On the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jondee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    you herd a bunch of wailing women and children into a ditch in Vietnam and open up on them and get two years.

    Just murder and torture who the state says to murder and torture and everyone'll be alright.

    [ Parent ]

    I see that you are still interested (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:35:28 PM EST
    in the my country always wrong bit...

    Tell me. Since the country is so bad, why do you stay?? Let me guess. Mexico won't have you.

    [ Parent ]

    I see you are still interested (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    in making any criticism whatsoever into a case of high treason.

    Why do you stay?? There are still a few military dictatorships you could emigrate to. Let me guess; they've been going downhill since 1945.

    [ Parent ]

    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST
    Since you are the one in a constant tizzy about the country I would say you are the one needing to leave.

    I'll be glad to write a letter of recommendation. I am sure Mexico is just chock full of opportunities.

    Enjoy!

    [ Parent ]

    A group of pinheads (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    who make up 30% of the nation isnt the equivalent of "America"; fortunatly for people like me and unfortunatly for you.

    [ Parent ]
    heh (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:37 PM EST
    You're the one in constant complaint. I have great respect and trust in the judgment of the American citizen.

    Write when you get there!

    [ Parent ]

    Wonder how many will try to get it (none / 0) (#15)
    by splashy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:30:05 AM EST
    So they can commit suicide by cop or by the state?

    That's what Ted Bundy did from what I have read.

    Bundy just enjoyed killing women (none / 0) (#17)
    by katmandu on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:12:41 AM EST
    He killed anywhere between 30-100 woman.
    He was into necrephilia, not suicidal.
    To be honest, I have moral qualms against the
    death penalty, but I must admit America is not
    worse off for the death of Lynde.  His argument was
    that he should not get the death penalty because
    he just murdered the two woman, but did not
    kidnap the first one.  He was sure she was dead
    when he threw her into the trunk.
    Really, I can't summon any regret over his death.

    Georgia Execution: The Death Penalty Resumes | 50 comments (50 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment