The Execution of Kelly Gissendaner

[Gravekeeper]

Georgia is set to execute its first female inmate in 70 years this evening. She's been on death row for 18 years and Georgia has rejected any and all calls for clemency. Even from the Pope himself.

Why is this important? Well, the problem is she's not the murderer. The murderer avoided the death penalty and is serving a life sentence. Gissendaner had her lover kill her husband. But the extent of her involvement in the event is in the alleged planning and in helping get rid of evidence afterwards.

The murderer on the other hand kidnapped her husband, took him to the woods, beat him, tortured him then stabbed him to death ( she was not present, did not witness it and did not assist it ). But he's the one that gets to live. He's even eligible for parole in another 7 years.

She on the other hand is set to die by lethal injection this evening.

[HYHYBT]

Sounds better than the Oklahoma case, at least.

[Greenday]

Did the murderer make a plea deal and the wife plead not-guilty? Only way I could see those punishments being doled out that way.

[Kheldarson]

Did the murderer make a plea deal and the wife plead not-guilty? Only way I could see those punishments being doled out that way.

That's exactly what happened actually.

[Gravekeeper]

He took a plea to testify against her, yeah. She died due to typical prosecutor bullshit, basically. Well, that and Georgia's legal system seems to be full of horrible people. Other than that though.

I mean, the message here is basically that the person that plotted/wanted the murder is somehow worse then the person that kidnapped a guy, forced him to drive them into the woods, made him get down on his knees, beat him, tortured him and stabbed him repeated in the neck.

Also, ignoring pleas from even the Pope himself is pretty cold. I wonder how that will play out.

[Greenday]

He took a plea to testify against her, yeah. She died due to typical prosecutor bullshit, basically. Well, that and Georgia's legal system seems to be full of horrible people. Other than that though.

I mean, the message here is basically that the person that plotted/wanted the murder is somehow worse then the person that kidnapped a guy, forced him to drive them into the woods, made him get down on his knees, beat him, tortured him and stabbed him repeated in the neck.

Also, ignoring pleas from even the Pope himself is pretty cold. I wonder how that will play out.

I don't see what the Pope has to do with it. Religious figures should have no place in the courtroom unless they are a witness.

The reason the murderer didn't get it is because he agreed to plea guilty. Saves the state tons of time and money. The woman who was put to death decided to fight it so she's not going to get any slack from the state.

[s_stabeler]

actually, i'm not so sure it is bullshit she was executed. In a murder-for-hire case- which is what this is- it's not uncommon for the hitman to be offered a plea bargain to finger whoever hired them.

Ultimately, while I don't think she should have been executed, it's more because I oppose the death penalty. he was offered a plea bargain, he took it, she (presumably) refused a plea bargain. (oh, and if she helped with the planning, and helped dispose of the evidence, she was a conspirator- making her morally just as bad, even if she didn't kill the victim herself.

So yeah, this is one case where I agree with Greenday.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't see what the Pope has to do with it. Religious figures should have no place in the courtroom unless they are a witness.

I don't disagree, that's not what I was getting at. I just mean basically everyone has come to her defense up to and including the Pope. Even the staff of the prison she was held at pushed for clemency. Plus the Pope is a pretty Big Deal(tm) among religious right types. I'm curious if it'll have PR fallout is all or if any of them are having conflicting "Well, I like the Pope but I also like state sanctioned executions" thoughts. -.-

The reason the murderer didn't get it is because he agreed to plea guilty. Saves the state tons of time and money. The woman who was put to death decided to fight it so she's not going to get any slack from the state.

Yeah, but they could have saved themselves another 3+ million dollars by giving them both life sentences. Also, I doubt she was offered as sweet a deal as the actual murderer.

actually, i'm not so sure it is bullshit she was executed. In a murder-for-hire case- which is what this is- it's not uncommon for the hitman to be offered a plea bargain to finger whoever hired them.

By prosecutor bullshit I mean the whole "he who squeals first gets punished the least" thing and seeking the maximum possible penalty for the sake of political optics more than justice. Especially when you are dealing with the death penalty.

Yes, she is a conspirator and by no means innocent. However, she was killed and the guy who actually kidnapped the victim, forced him to basically drive to his own grave, forced him down on his knees, beat the shit out of him then stabbed him repeatedly in the neck and back; That guy is eligible for parole in 7 years.

That is not justice. It does not serve the public interest in any way. Who would you rather back out on the street? Someone who once plotted to kill someone else or someone that can be swayed into a brutal kidnapping, torture and murder because his girlfriend asked him too? So the public safety is not being served. Nor is serving as a deterrent.

Besides, why did they need this guy's testimony? This woman was not a criminal mastermind by any means. She would not have escaped conviction without his testimony. The only reason to seek his testimony is the prosecutor wanting an execution instead of prison time. And to get it they were willing to allow the actual murderer to see the outside of a cell again in his lifetime. Despite that whole "willing to kidnap and stab a man multiple times in the neck cus his girlfriend asked him too" thing.

Thats not the sort of shit someone can just convince you to do with enough nagging. That level of cruelty has to already be present.

[Greenday]

I don't disagree, that's not what I was getting at. I just mean basically everyone has come to her defense up to and including the Pope. Even the staff of the prison she was held at pushed for clemency. Plus the Pope is a pretty Big Deal(tm) among religious right types. I'm curious if it'll have PR fallout is all or if any of them are having conflicting "Well, I like the Pope but I also like state sanctioned executions" thoughts. -.-

Yeah, but they could have saved themselves another 3+ million dollars by giving them both life sentences. Also, I doubt she was offered as sweet a deal as the actual murderer.

"Thou shall not kill" is a pretty big concept for the Christian religion. It's not shocking that the leader of said religion is against state sponsored murder execution.

And yes, they could have saved money. But the people demand blood and until enough of society realizes how absurd it is, it'll keep happening and wasting our tax dollars.

[Gravekeeper]

And yes, they could have saved money. But the people demand blood and until enough of society realizes how absurd it is, it'll keep happening and wasting our tax dollars.

Pretty much, sadly. Though on the upside support for the death penalty is at its lowest in decades in the US. I wonder how much actual support it has in Georgia at this point? The national average is around 60% in favour. Though when presented as life imprisonment vs death penalty a slim majority actually oppose the death penalty.

Looking at the numbers now though, I'm more unsettled by how stark a difference there is in support/oppose along political and racial lines. I shouldn't really be surprised. Old white conservatives are basically the bane of America at this point. >.>

[s_stabeler]

By prosecutor bullshit I mean the whole "he who squeals first gets punished the least" thing and seeking the maximum possible penalty for the sake of political optics more than justice. Especially when you are dealing with the death penalty.

Yes, she is a conspirator and by no means innocent. However, she was killed and the guy who actually kidnapped the victim, forced him to basically drive to his own grave, forced him down on his knees, beat the shit out of him then stabbed him repeatedly in the neck and back; That guy is eligible for parole in 7 years.

That is not justice. It does not serve the public interest in any way. Who would you rather back out on the street? Someone who once plotted to kill someone else or someone that can be swayed into a brutal kidnapping, torture and murder because his girlfriend asked him too? So the public safety is not being served. Nor is serving as a deterrent.

Besides, why did they need this guy's testimony? This woman was not a criminal mastermind by any means. She would not have escaped conviction without his testimony. The only reason to seek his testimony is the prosecutor wanting an execution instead of prison time. And to get it they were willing to allow the actual murderer to see the outside of a cell again in his lifetime. Despite that whole "willing to kidnap and stab a man multiple times in the neck cus his girlfriend asked him too" thing.

Thats not the sort of shit someone can just convince you to do with enough nagging. That level of cruelty has to already be present.

it depends. It's possible that the prosecutor believed there was a very low chance of teh guy re-offending, while there was a high chance of the woman doing it again.

[Gravekeeper]

it depends. It's possible that the prosecutor believed there was a very low chance of teh guy re-offending, while there was a high chance of the woman doing it again.

Given the details of the case I doubt it. Going over the case files it looks like it might actually have been the prosecutor overreaching and getting what he asked for when he didn't actually want it. There was tons of evidence against her by the looks of it. She would not have evaded a guilty verdict regardless of the murderer's testimony. In fact, his testimony was kind of a shit show. He changed his version of events a number of times over subsequent interviews with prosecutors and even recanted it after the trial.

The problem it looks is that in Georgia the sentence of life without parole is not a legal option unless the suspect is facing the death penalty. The prosecutor may have wanted life without parole but in trying to aim for it ended up with the death sentence for her and life with parole for the actual murderer. Once that sentence was handed down it, in effect, was completely out of the prosecution's hands and into the hands of Georgia's death happy court system.

Georgia's parole board isn't exactly known for its clemency and its entirely appointed by the governor of the state. It should also be noted that Georgia is one of the very few states where the governor cannot grant clemency. So the fate of a death row inmate in Georgia is entirely in the hands of its parole board.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't want the death penalty to exist, and I can honestly say that I would HOPE that they can both stay away and NEITHER dies. But if you, so to speak, put a gun to my head, I think I'd rather the person she had do it get out, than her. I'd say that if you take steps to make something like that happen, knowing that it's going to happen, you aren't less culpable than the one who actually pulled the trigger. So I'd go for whoever is the one who set things in motion. If it was her idea, I don't think she's less of a murderer because she got someone else to do it for her. And I imagine that the person who needed a motivation given TO them, be it money or affection or anything else, is less likely to re-offend than the person who decided that someone should die.

Using another person as your weapon is no different from using a gun, a knife, or a bomb. It's just that your weapon in this case needs to be motivated by money or sex or toys, rather than by the pull of a trigger or a clicking of a pressure switch. Sure, they're not morally free themselves. But at least they had to have someone else CONVINCE them that the good outweighed the bad. They didn't decide it themselves.

Getting someone else to do the dirty work for you does not make you not a murderer.

[Gravekeeper]

But if you, so to speak, put a gun to my head, I think I'd rather the person she had do it get out, than her.

If we were talking about a spur of the moment crime of passion I might be more inclined to agree with you. But the level of violence he undertook during the murder is not a heat of the moment thing. He waited in the house to surprise him. Held a knife to his throat. Took him out to the car. Made him drive the two of them out into the woods. Forced him down on his knees. Beat the shit out of him with a nightstick. Then stabbed him repeatedly in the neck and back.

You can't just nag someone into that kind of gruesome violence. They have to be predisposed to it.

I'm not saying she's not a murderer or anything. But while she may have planned it, she didn't witness it nor assist in it. She effectively hired a hitman so to speak. Hence she was charged with malice murder.

The other problem is that by all accounts she had been successfully rehabilitated by her time in prison. To the point where even the staff at the jail were pushing the state for clemency. The other guy on the other hand has no such success story.

So they killed the one they successfully rehabilitated and are set to let the one they didn't out on parole. The one that was perfectly okay with kidnapping, brutally beaten and murdering a man in the woods because his girlfriend asked him too.