Gallego Victim's Father Speaks
charlene
A letter to the editor recently appeared in the San Jose Mercury News,
written by Hal Sowers, father of Gallego victim Mary Beth Sowers. I'll
post a portion of it here.
Dear Editor;
My daughter Mary Beth, then 21, and her fiancée' Craig Miller, 23, were
leaving a college dance in Sacramento in 1980 when they were kidnapped and
subsequently murdered by a serial killer named Gerald Gallego, known as the
"Trailside Killer". He was sentenced to death in California in 1983.
Later, he was sentenced to death in Nevada for the murder of two young
women. More than 16 years after his crime, he remains on death row.
My message is to those people who are against the death penalty and the
method of execution. They should live so many years with thoughts of the
'cruel and unusual' way in which Mary Beth and Craig died. Why are they so
concerned about a confessed murderer who took the innocent lives of others?
Much was recently said about the execution of a Florida inmate when the
electric chair malfunctioned. In my mind, the method by which murderers
are put to death in unimportant. If the chair is 'cruel and unusual',
change the method. Just get on with it. Personally, I would welcome the
opportunity to throw the switch on Gallego.
--
Charlene
http://www.jfa.net
Copy of earlier post regarding Gallego's crimes.
Gerald Gallego, white male, on sentence of death in both Nevada and
California. (Bet I know which one will get him there first....)
From "Death Row VI"
In April 1980, Karen Chipman-Twiffs and Stacey Redican, both 17, were lured
into a van in Sacramento, Calif. Charlene Gallego drove the van 200 miles
to Nevada while her common-law husband sexually assaulted the girls in the
back. In the remote hills outside of Lovelock Nev., he beat the girls to
death with a hammer. He was sentenced to death in Nevada for the murders.
Gallego also has been sentenced to die in California for the 1980 murders
of Mary Beth Sowers and Craig Miller. The Pershing County, Nev. district
attorney said he would try Gallego in Lovelock for the murders of Twiggs
and Redican, because he had no faith in the California criminal justice
system's ability to execute Gallego. When the comments were published,
people from around the nation sent thousands of dollars to the Pershing
County court clerk to defray the cost of the trial. Gallego, 45, who sits
on death row in Nevada, is the son of a man who was executed in
Mississippi.
Mark Andrew Spence
Karlkeys wrote:
>
> The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
> first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
> the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
> any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
>
Described as "a walking vegetable" by whom, one might ask?
M.S.
east...@bright.net
karl...@aol.com (Karlkeys) wrote:
>The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
>first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
>the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
>any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
human being is on death row? Did his victim get a federal hearing
before being killed?
For the bleeding heards and Mummia lovers out there; when you speak so
eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why not include a few
of the reasons they are there in the first place?
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: California to get an unexpected execution later this year
From: karl...@aol.com (Karlkeys)
Date: 21 Sep 1997 15:12:49 GMT
Message-id: <19970921151...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
In article <3424AEB7...@ricochet.net>, Mark Andrew Spence
<mksp...@ricochet.net> writes:
>>
>> The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file
a >> first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'"
despite >> the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable'
incapbable of >> any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
..........
The Veggie Man Walking may have mental problems now, but he was sane when
he committed the crime, and he was sane enough to participate in his defense.
As far as the the Legal newspaper the Reporter stating that the defendant
was a "walking vegetable" one may well ask did the conduct their own
independent investigation or did they get their information from an anti-Dp
press release?
Jigssaw
Mark Andrew Spence
Karlkeys wrote:
>
> The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
> first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
> the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
> any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
>
Mark Andrew Spence writes:
>
> Described as "a walking vegetable" by whom, one might ask?
>
Karlkeys wrote:
>
> He was called a walking vegetable by the legal newspaper the Recorder.
>
Mark Andrew Spence writes:
>
> Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
> human being is on death row? [snip]
>
> [W]hen you speak so eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why
> not >include a few of the reasons they are there in the first place?
>
Excuse me, but I never wrote this.
Karlkeys wrote:
>
> I included the URL for a reason, I couldn't fit all the facts people might
> want without posting the entire opinion and newspaper article from the
> Recorder. IF the two posters had bothered to walk their fingers to the
> given url, instead of flapping them on the keyboard in vitriol . . .. A
> full text of the opinion is available at Calderon v. US District Court
> for the Cen..., (http://members.aol.com/karlkeys/calderon.htm)
>
Excuse me, but I went to this URL, did a search on the strings 'a
walking vegetable,' 'vegetable,' and 'walking,' and I came up empty all
three times.
M.S.
Karlkeys
>>
>> The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
>> first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
>> the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
>> any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
>>
>
>Described as "a walking vegetable" by whom, one might ask?
>
>
He was called a walking vegetable by the legal newspaper the Recorder.
Footnote one of Judge Tashima's concurrence/dissent notes:
" A 1995 examining psychiatrist's report concludes, in part:
"[B]eginning in January 1990 he [Kelly] has been repeatedly diagnosed as
suffering from a psychotic disorder, with such symptoms as delusions,
hallucination, inappropriate affect, social withdrawal, bizarreness,
fragmentation of thinking, and incoherence. As recently as August 1992
several members of the psychiatric staff at San Quentin evaluated the
Petitioner, and concluded that they were unable to ascertain that he was sane.
"The report further concluded:
"[H]e is now suffering form [sic.] a psychotic mental disorder of such
severity that it precludes his capacity to appreciate his current legal
position and make rational choices with respect to the current court
proceedings."
>Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
>human being is on death row? [snip]
>
>[W]hen you speak so eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why
not >include a few of the reasons they are there in the first place?
I snipped the facts of this case to this list because the importance of
this court opinion is that this is the first time the AEDPA (the 1996
habeas law) will actually expedite and execution. If you had bothered to
follow the link provided, instead of writing your vitriolic response, you'd
have known already that the facts of this case according to the Ninth
Circuit are:
Way over ten years ago, Kelly murdered three people in three separate
incidents.
On November 16, 1984, he slew Sonia Reed in San Bernardino County,
California, and he followed up that deed by slaying Ursula Houser on
November 17, 1984, in the same county. He then shifted his facinorous
operations, and on November 22, 1984, he took the life of an
eleven-year-old boy, Danny O., in Riverside County, California. He was
convicted and sentenced to death for Danny O.'s murder, and on November 26,
1990, the conviction and sentence was upheld by the California Supreme
Court.. He was also convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of
Sonia Reed and Ursula Houser, and on January 16, 1992, that conviction and
sentence was upheld by the California Supreme Court.
I included the URL for a reason, I couldn't fit all the facts people might
want without posting the entire opinion and newspaper article from the
Recorder. IF the two posters had bothered to walk their fingers to the
given url, instead of flapping them on the keyboard in vitriol . . .. A
full text of the opinion is available at Calderon v. US District Court
for the Cen..., (http://members.aol.com/karlkeys/calderon.htm)
-- karl
Pooch
east...@bright.net wrote:
>
> karl...@aol.com (Karlkeys) wrote:
>
> >The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
> >first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
> >the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
> >any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
>
> before being killed?
>
> eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why not include a few
> of the reasons they are there in the first place?
how he was poor, he was homeless, his dog died, his grandmother smoked a
pipe at the dinner table.
"Kill em quick, It's just a little stick"
Pooch
Mark Andrew Spence wrote:
>
> Karlkeys wrote:
> >
> > The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
> > first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
> > the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
> > any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
> >
>
>
A vegetable? Good cook him!
Pooch
Karlkeys wrote:
>
> The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
> first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
> the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
> thefirst case in which a individual, especially one facing death, has been
> denied even one federal review of their conviction since the passate of the
> 1996 habeas changes, the AEDPA.
>
> Despite laws in almost every state holding that a mentally incompetent
> person's disability "tolls" the statute of limitation, thus preventing the
> time limit for filing from expiring, the 1996 law expediting habeas
> petitions, the Ninth Circuit held, contains no such provisions. The Ninth
> Circuit' panel opinion means that unless overturned by the full Ninth
> Circuit or the United States Supreme Court, Kelly is not entitled to have
> federal habeas review and will be executed later this year.
>
> After the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act became law last
> year, the California attorney general's office moved to dismiss Kelly's
> case from fedeal court, U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter Jr. rejected the
> motion but the Ninth Circuit has sided with AG's office.
>
> Psychiatrists at San Quentin prison evaluated Kelly two years ago and
> couldn't "ascertain that he was sane," according to the Ninth Circuit's
> opinion. But Supervising Deputy Attorney General Keith Motley, who argued
> for the state, said Kelly's case is only unique because it may be the only
> one on death row "with counsel which ignored the statutory deadline for
> petition. The court gave us the relief we felt we were entitled to."
> (Excerpts from the SFRecorder)
>
> A full text of the opinion is available at US9 Calderon v. US DistrictGood, the quicker they carry out the sentence the better!
It's a tool use it!
Desmond Coughlan
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 04:38:01 GMT, east...@bright.net wrote:
>>The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
>>first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
>>the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
>>any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
>Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
>human being is on death row? Did his victim get a federal hearing
>before being killed?
Of course he didn't, you neanderthal, double-digit-IQ halfwit. The
fact that he violated his victim's rights (if, in fact, he is guilty.
Let's not forget the incompetence for which the United States criminal
justice system is *infamous*), does not give the state the right to
violate his rights in return.
>For the bleeding heards and Mummia lovers out there; when you speak so
>eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why not include a few
>of the reasons they are there in the first place?
All right, I asked a similar question before, and received no
response, except for a typically Jigsawesque stalk ... allow me to ask
you the same question, in the hope of getting an intelligent answer.
Tell us what benefit the victim enjoys, when his or her murderer is
put to death. If someone on this group can come up with a reasonable
answer to that, other than some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about
"honouring the victim's", or some mendacious bullshit claiming that
the execution will "deter" further killings, then I for one shall
understand better, the position of those who get pleasure from
state-sponsored homicide.
----
Desmond Coughlan |"We got loud guitars and big suspicions,
Remove "nospam_" from |Great big guns and small ambitions,
e-mail address. |And we still argue over who is God."
*******************************************
http://www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla/
Karlkeys
The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
charlene
east...@bright.net wrote
: karl...@aol.com (Karlkeys) wrote:
:
:
: >The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
: >first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'"
despite
: >the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable
of
: >any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
:
: Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
: human being is on death row? Did his victim get a federal hearing
: before being killed?
:
: For the bleeding hearts and Mumia lovers out there; when you speak so
: eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why not include a few
: of the reasons they are there in the first place?
:
Please, allow me.....Horace E. Kelly is a black male on California's death
row. On Thanksgiving in 1984, Daniel David Osentowski, 11 years old,
attempted to stop Kelly from kidnapping his 13 year old cousin, allowing
her to escape but he was shot and killed as he begged for his life. Kelly
was out of prison after being convicted of two counts of first degree
murder for shooting two women to death after raping and robbing one of them
and attempting to rape the other. Don't ask me why in the hell he was out
of prison to be able to attempt to kidnap his cousin. He has murdered at
least three people; just what should we do with him?
charlene
charlene
: I snipped the facts of this case to this list because the importance of
: this court opinion is that this is the first time the AEDPA (the 1996
: habeas law) will actually expedite and execution. If you had bothered to
: follow the link provided, instead of writing your vitriolic response,
you'd
: have known already that the facts of this case according to the Ninth
: Circuit are:
:
: Way over ten years ago, Kelly murdered three people in three separate
: incidents.
: On November 16, 1984, he slew Sonia Reed in San Bernardino County,
: California, and he followed up that deed by slaying Ursula Houser on
: November 17, 1984, in the same county. He then shifted his facinorous
: operations, and on November 22, 1984, he took the life of an
: eleven-year-old boy, Danny O., in Riverside County, California. He was
: convicted and sentenced to death for Danny O.'s murder, and on November
26,
: 1990, the conviction and sentence was upheld by the California Supreme
: Court.. He was also convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of
: Sonia Reed and Ursula Houser, and on January 16, 1992, that conviction
and
: sentence was upheld by the California Supreme Court.
(http://members.aol.com/karlkeys/calderon.htm)
My question is......what has happened with his appointed counsel and his
'next friend'???? Aren't you upset that they did not follow through and
file his habeas appeals? His counsel was appointed over four years ago and
the friend was appointed over a year and a half ago, yet nothing was done
on Kelly's behalf. It appears that they intended to ride that train for as
long as it would go. What a wrong choice they made.
charlene
From this cited decision:
Kelly has never filed an application or petition for habeas corpus relief
in the federal courts and has never, therefore, stated any colorable
grounds for the issuance of the Great Writ. Rather, he has been permitted
to take advantage of a judicially created rule which enables an allegedly
prospective federal habeas corpus petitioner to start a "proceeding" for
the purpose of obtaining federally appointed counsel before any application
or petition for habeas corpus is filed. That proceeding then allows the
district court to "enter a stay of execution" on the theory that a
petitioner has the right to counsel, and "the right
to counsel necessarily includes a right for that counsel meaningfully to
research and present a defendant's habeas claims."
On September 8, 1992, the district court granted a stay of Kelly's
execution for the murder of Danny O., so that counsel could
be appointed for him. Counsel was appointed January 15, 1993. Then, on June
4, 1993, the district court granted a stay of
Kelly's execution for the murders of Sonia Reed and Ursula Houser and
appointed counsel. Now, more than four years after
the grants of those stays, there still has been no filing of a habeas
corpus application, and there would be no end in sight unless the AEDPA has
brought the proceedings to a close. There have, however, been other orders
issued. On January 9, 1995, the district court appointed a psychiatrist to
evaluate Kelly's present mental condition. Of course, Kelly's mental
condition has been an issue since the beginning of the state proceedings
against him.
Then on January 5, 1996, the district court appointed a "next friend" to
bring a habeas corpus petition on Kelly's behalf. That is
another method for assuring that a defendant obtains prompt review of
federal constitutional questions on habeas corpus. Still, no habeas corpus
application or petition was filed.
The considerations that prohibit an incompetent person from being tried . .
, do not apply after the judgment. The issues on
appeal are limited to the appellate record. An appeal involves only legal
issues based on that record. Attorneys do not need to
rely on the defendant himself to decide what issues are worthy of pursuit.
Kelly has had counsel to represent him for a long time, and even has a next
friend. The Supreme Court could hardly have
contemplated that all post-conviction proceedings would be stayed because a
defendant was not competent, when it endorsed
the concept which allows " 'next friends' [to] appear in court on behalf of
detained prisoners who are unable, usually because of mental incompetence
or inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves."
The AEDPA was enacted April 24, 1996, and it, as relevant here, provided
that an application for a writ of habeas corpus
must be filed within one year of "the date on which the [state court]
judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration
of the time for seeking such review." It is clear that we are now far
beyond that one-year period, but we have held that, in justice, the one
year would not begin to run until the date the AEDPA was enacted. That
year has passed. Still, no application for habeas corpus has been filed.
Faced with the delay, and with no end in sight, the State filed a motion to
dismiss both proceedings and to vacate the stays of
execution because the one-year statute of limitations had passed. The
district court, without revealing its reasoning, declared
that the AEDPA's filing deadlines do not apply to this matter. This
petition for a writ of mandamus followed.
Because once his direct appeals were decided Kelly did not request any
further relief from the California courts, he cannot,
generally speaking, pursue any issues in the federal courts which were not
before the California Supreme Court when it decided those appeals. Any
other purported claims would be unexhausted. Kelly is simply attempting to
obtain from the federal courts, by indirection, the very relief he was
denied on direct appeal in California. He seeks to put off any decision
whatever on the merits of his claims, if any. That he cannot do under the
guise of tolling or otherwise. As it is, he has injected a long, fruitless
delay into the state proceedings. The AEDPA has, however, brought that
delay to an end.
Of course, if Kelly's real point is that a presently incompetent person
should not be executed, that claim is premature. It can
only be brought up if and when an order for his execution issues. In that
event, California does recognize that it cannot execute an insane person.
It provides a procedure for turning the order of execution aside.
Moreover, Kelly could seek relief in the federal courts.
Kelly desires to turn the procedure for obtaining counsel before an
application for habeas corpus is filed into a source of
sempiternal delay of all state and federal proceedings against him. Before
the AEDPA, that strategy had prospects for success. In fact, he has
obtained a delay of all proceedings regarding his convictions for well over
four years. However, although represented by counsel and a next friend, he
did not file his application for habeas corpus within one year after the
passage of the AEDPA. It is now too late.
The petition for a writ of mandamus is GRANTED.
Mark Andrew Spence
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>
> All right, I asked a similar question before, and received no
> response, except for a typically Jigsawesque stalk ... allow me to ask
> you the same question, in the hope of getting an intelligent answer.
>
> Tell us what benefit the victim enjoys, when his or her murderer is
> put to death. If someone on this group can come up with a reasonable
> answer to that, other than some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about
> "honouring the victim's", or some mendacious bullshit claiming that
> the execution will "deter" further killings, then I for one shall
> understand better, the position of those who get pleasure from
> state-sponsored homicide.
>
I suppose when you're faced with an issue for which no credible rebuttal
exists, you stoop to fabricating an issue which you can rebut?
I have yet to see anyone who does not oppose the death penalty assert
that an execution is going to resurrect the victim or any other nonsense
that you like to claim.
M.S.
Rev. Don Kool
Mark Andrew Spence wrote:
> Desi Coughlan wrote:
Typically Desi posts a non-sequitur. Justice supporters do
not "get pleasure" from a just execution. The murdered victims of
these vile and remorseless killers certainly do not. Justice supporters
merely face the grim reality of what morality demands must be done.
The victims gain the ability to Rest In Peace (RIP).
Hope this helps,
Don
********************** My juice is sweet like Georgia peaches
* Rev. Don McDonald * Women suck it up like leeches
* Baltimore, MD * ---- FREAKNASTY
********************** "Da' Dip"
http://www.clark.net/pub/oldno7
JIGSAW1695
: Mark Andrew Spence took exception to Desi's look-down-his-nose-attitude
and said ,,<<snipped>> and added my comments:
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
<<Desi said>>>
> All right, I asked a similar question before, and received no
response, except for a typically Jigsawesque stalk ...
- - - - -
<<Jigsaw>>
Stalking? Stalking??? Dont flatter yourself Desi. You are not worth the
time or the effort. You are a petty, insecure individual suffering from the
correct belief that you are insignificant and meaningless in this world.
You have nothing positive to contribute as you are mean-spirited and
without any redeeming values.
<<Desi>> ..........
allow me to ask > you the same question, in the hope of getting an
intelligent answer.
Tell us what benefit the victim enjoys, when his or her murderer is put
to death.
- - - - -
<<Jigsaw>>
Desi, once again your less-than-ideal-logic asks the wrong questions,
follows the wrong path. The victim would have preferred to be alive, not
murdered. Had the one who took the victims life not done so, the questions
of justice, revenge, bloodlust or whatever you want to title it would not
be have to be debated.
You see Desi, there are some of in this world who just plain dont like to
be fucked with. If someone hurts us, we share the pain...we hurt them
back. As civilized people, we first attempt to let the law do its job. And
if the law mandates that a killer be set free...we live with it and than go
on to change the law.
We ara compassionate, yet vigorous people. We slew our enemies without
mercy and then fed and clothed them when they found wisdom and renounced
their ways. We do not allow our children to be murdered and than forget
about the evil that was done to them. Nor do we allow our brothers,
sisters, parents or neighbors to be cut down in a purse snatch or burglary
gone bad or killed out of pure meaness.
We may forgive someone for what they have done, but that does mean we will
allow justice to be forgotten.
<<Desi>> - - - - - - - - -
If someone on this group can come up with a reasonable > answer to that,
other than some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about "honouring the victim's",
- - - - - - - -
<<Jigsaw>>
What you call "metephysical mumbo-jumbo about honouring the victims" is
called "respecting the victims memory", not forgetting who and what they
were and what the represented to their loved ones.
- - - - -
<<Desi>>
or some mendacious bullshit claiming that the execution will "deter"
further killings, then I for one shall understand better, the position of
those who get pleasure from state-sponsored homicide.
- - - - - -
<<Jigsaw>>
Desi, I think you shold understand that I, and most of the other Dpers
dont really give a damn of theDp deters or not. Nor do we care if it is
more costly to execute a cold blooded killer or not. We are not that
concerned if the killer is poor, rich, of color or not, homeless or well
housed. What we care about is justice. You hurt us, we hurt you back.
And the DP bringing the victim back. Well son, it wont. Dead is dead. But
we want to convey the mesage to the killer that there will be no
ressurection in this life for him, that justice will be administered for
his crimes and he will face his Final Judgement and be able to plead that
he has already been punished, and more punishment would be double-jepordy.
Only God can judge whether his appeal is valid or not
Desi old chap, you can call us barbaric, uncivilized, uncouth, illiterate,
stupid, bloodthirsty or anything else that you want to.
But son, dont try to hurt us because if you do, we will hurt you back. It
is our nature.
Now you continue with your rantings and you insulting of the victims of
family if you want. But Desi, I gotta point something out to you..... I
have not seen one message ont his board that has anything nice to say
about you.
In essence, some may agree with your stand against the DP based on
beliefs, but I havent seen one person who feels that you are personaly
worth more than a bucket of spit.
Yours in Contempt,
Jigsaw
Kent Anderson
If you also read Judge Tashima's dissenting opinion you will note that the
district court ordered a stay of all further proceedings until it made a
determination of competency. That determination has never been made. It
is therefore, understandable that no petition was filed in violation of the
court's order.
The parts that are incomprehensible are that: Mr. Kelly's attorneys did
not raise this issue in the mandamus proceeding; and the other two judges
ignored the clear language of the district court's order.
Of course, it is still an open question whether Mr. Kelly will ever be
executed, even if the Ninth Circuit panel's decision stands. It is
unconstitutional to execute someone who is not mentally competent. (There
is the strange idea that we not only want to murder an inmate, we want him
to know we're doing it.) Therefore, Mr. Kelly can not be executed if he is
still mentally incompetent and remains so.
charlene <jhalls*spam_me_not*@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bcc6f1$f91433c0$6648ddcf@home>...
Lord Clane
In article <3424fad...@news.pratique.fr>, nospam_...@pratique.fr
(Desmond Coughlan), in a dialog with eastside and Jigsaw (?), writes:
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 04:38:01 GMT, east...@bright.net wrote:
>>>The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that Horace Edwards Kelly cannot file a
>>>first federal habeas petition, the Court held "it is now too late'" despite
>>>the fact Kelly has been described as 'a walking vegetable' incapbable of
>>>any meaningful attempt to file a federal claim.
Jigsaw?
>>Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
>>human being is on death row? Did his victim get a federal hearing
>>before being killed?
Coughlin
>Of course he didn't, you neanderthal, double-digit-IQ halfwit.
Coughlin is making some unwarranted assumptions about his opponent's DNA
that are almost certainly untrue. All the neanderthals have been gone for
tens of thousands of years. I somehow doubt he's gotten access to IQ test
results too,
but with privacy on the net what it is, one never knows....
Coughlin
>The fact that he violated his victim's rights (if, in fact, he is guilty.
>Let's not forget the incompetence for which the United States criminal
>justice system is *infamous*), does not give the state the right to
>violate his rights in return.
And exactly what "right" of his is being violated? As usual, in addition to
specifying the right Coughlin has in mind, I would add the usual questions
as to who (or what body) defined it, promulgated it, guards it, and enforces
it? There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Kelly knew whe was doing
when he did it, and that seems to be enough....
Jigsaw
>>For the bleeding heards and Mummia lovers out there; when you speak so
>>eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why not include a few
>>of the reasons they are there in the first place?
Coughlin
>All right, I asked a similar question before, and received no
>response, except for a typically Jigsawesque stalk ... allow me to ask
>you the same question, in the hope of getting an intelligent answer.
>
>Tell us what benefit the victim enjoys, when his or her murderer is
>put to death. If someone on this group can come up with a reasonable
>answer to that, other than some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about
>"honouring the victim's", or some mendacious bullshit claiming that
>the execution will "deter" further killings, then I for one shall
>understand better, the position of those who get pleasure from
>state-sponsored homicide.
Coughlin has been around long enough to know the answer to this one too.
In addition to the immediate victim of the murder, the STATE is a victim as
well,
losing the life of one of its citizens. Note that, legally, murder is a crime
against the state, and even if the immediate victim manages deathbed
forgiveness of his or her assailant, the perpetrator can still be convicted
as well. Thus, when the murderer is executed, though the deceased gains
no obvious material benefit, we the citizenry and our instrument, the state,
get several benefits. Our collective sense of justice, as implemented through
our laws and judicial system, is satisfied. The criminal has suffered a cost
(lifespan) qualitatively similar to that he or she imposed upon both the
immediate victim and society. Other side benefits include the absolute
guaranteed termination of a lethal hazard to society (the murderer) an
example we wish to set for others of our society's response to such murder,
and, to the extent that such an effect may exist, deterrence to whoever
might be deterred.
JIGSAW1695
Well said Lord Clane
The only objection that I have on your reply to Desi is that you used to
many big words, and you used logic in defining you answer.
This definitly places the answer beyond Desi's ability to comprehend.
( My message as posted is Not bad for a neanderthal, double-digit-IQ halfwit)
Subject: Re: California to get an unexpected execution later this year
From: lord...@aol.com (Lord Clane)
Date: 26 Sep 1997 04:50:24 GMT
Message-id: <19970926045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Desmond Coughlan
On 26 Sep 1997 06:10:42 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>Well said Lord Clane
<laugh>
Good ol', Jigsaw ... if he were any more stupid, he'd have to be
watered twice a week ...
>The only objection that I have on your reply to Desi is that you used to
>many big words, and you used logic in defining you answer.
You have to understand, Jigsaw, that what constitutes a big word to
you, isn't such to the rest of us. Whilst you're still struggling to
spell "car", the rest of have moved on to bigger words.
>This definitly places the answer beyond Desi's ability to comprehend.
All right, Jigsaw ... time out ... you _are_ doing this for a bet,
aren't you?
Hasn't it shrunk into that tiny brain of yours that Clane was taking
the piss out of you?
> ( My message as posted is Not bad for a neanderthal, double-digit-IQ halfwit)
Yes, but for a normal, sentient human being, you're still an
embarrassment to your species.
Rev. Don Kool
JIGSAW1695 wrote:
> Well said Lord Clane
>
> The only objection that I have on your reply to Desi is that you used to
> many big words, and you used logic in defining you answer.
>
> This definitly places the answer beyond Desi's ability to comprehend.
> ( My message as posted is Not bad for a neanderthal, double-digit-IQ halfwit)
This is, of course, sadly true. If Desi responds at all to
Clane's explanation, he will naturally feel compelled to either
sprinkle his ramblings with ad hominem admissions of defeat or avoid
Clane's response alltogether and construct a strawman of his own which
is easier to deconstruct. It's what he likes, it's what he knows.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
Desmond Coughlan
On 26 Sep 1997 04:50:24 GMT, lord...@aol.com (Lord Clane) wrote:
>>>Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
>>>human being is on death row? Did his victim get a federal hearing
>>>before being killed?
>>Of course he didn't, you neanderthal, double-digit-IQ halfwit.
>Coughlin is making some unwarranted assumptions about his opponent's DNA
>that are almost certainly untrue. All the neanderthals have been gone for
>tens of thousands of years. I somehow doubt he's gotten access to IQ test
>results too,
>but with privacy on the net what it is, one never knows....
Well if the Loch Ness monster can survive, Clane, I don't see why one
can't assume that Jigsaw is one of a dying breed ... there's a few of
them left, yunno ... scattered about Maryland, Florida, and Texas ...
>>The fact that he violated his victim's rights (if, in fact, he is guilty.
>>Let's not forget the incompetence for which the United States criminal
>>justice system is *infamous*), does not give the state the right to
>>violate his rights in return.
>And exactly what "right" of his is being violated? As usual, in addition to
>specifying the right Coughlin has in mind, I would add the usual questions
>as to who (or what body) defined it, promulgated it, guards it, and enforces
>it? There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Kelly knew whe was doing
>when he did it, and that seems to be enough....
OK? I'll bite. Tell us, Clane, where it is written that murder --
indeed, killing of any kind is wrong. Take this to its logical
conclusion, and your argument suggests that murderers don't deserve to
punished at all, as it is only society's mores which dictate that
killing is wrong.
You can't have it both ways.
>>>For the bleeding heards and Mummia lovers out there; when you speak so
>>>eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why not include a few
>>>of the reasons they are there in the first place?
>>All right, I asked a similar question before, and received no
>>response, except for a typically Jigsawesque stalk ... allow me to ask
>>you the same question, in the hope of getting an intelligent answer.
>>
>>Tell us what benefit the victim enjoys, when his or her murderer is
>>put to death. If someone on this group can come up with a reasonable
>>answer to that, other than some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about
>>"honouring the victim's", or some mendacious bullshit claiming that
>>the execution will "deter" further killings, then I for one shall
>>understand better, the position of those who get pleasure from
>>state-sponsored homicide.
>Coughlin has been around long enough to know the answer to this one too.
>In addition to the immediate victim of the murder, the STATE is a victim as
>well, losing the life of one of its citizens.
I note that there is no legal framework to allow for a condemned
person to be deprived of his citizenship, prior to his death at the
hands of the state. Thus, each murder, if it ends in the execution of
the criminal, results in the deaths of _two_ citizens (excluding the
few cases where the condemned is a foreign national).
>Note that, legally, murder is a crime
>against the state, and even if the immediate victim manages deathbed
>forgiveness of his or her assailant, the perpetrator can still be convicted
>as well.
Thus exposing as a sham the notion, proudly trumpeted by certain
pro-death posters, that the death penalty "honours" the victim. If I
were the victim of an attack (Don, put that little thing _away_ !),
and asked on my death bed that my attacker not be executed, then to do
so would be an insult to my memory.
>Thus, when the murderer is executed, though the deceased gains
>no obvious material benefit, we the citizenry and our instrument, the state,
>get several benefits.
Which are ..?
>Our collective sense of justice, as implemented through
>our laws and judicial system, is satisfied.
Anything vaguely scientific in there, Clane, or is that asking too
much ..? :-)
>Other side benefits include the absolute
>guaranteed termination of a lethal hazard to society (the murderer) an
>example we wish to set for others of our society's response to such murder,
>and, to the extent that such an effect may exist, deterrence to whoever
>might be deterred.
You know fine well that no deterrence effect exists, so I shall take
that last comment as a sop to the bloodthirsty bastards on this
newsgroup, among whom I do not count you. As for the "example" you
mention, there are ample documented cases where the execution of one
murderer has acted well as an "example", causing a huge leap in the
number of homicides in the period following.
Rev. Don Kool
Desi "shit on the victims" Coughlan wrote:
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
[...Desi's off topic remarks snipped...]
Oops; that was the whole fucking thing.
Hope this helps,
Don
Lord Clane
In article <342b9c7...@news.pratique.fr>, nospam_...@pratique.fr
(Desmond Coughlan), in a dialog with Lord Clane, writes:
???
>>>>Ahhh... poor man! So, tell us why this illustrious (and innocent)
>>>>human being is on death row? Did his victim get a federal hearing
>>>>before being killed?
Coughlin
>>>Of course he didn't, you neanderthal, double-digit-IQ halfwit.
Clane
>>Coughlin is making some unwarranted assumptions about his opponent's DNA
>>that are almost certainly untrue. All the neanderthals have been gone for
>>tens of thousands of years. I somehow doubt he's gotten access to IQ test
>>results too, but with privacy on the net what it is, one never knows....
Coughlin
>Well if the Loch Ness monster can survive, Clane, I don't see why one
>can't assume that Jigsaw is one of a dying breed ... there's a few of
>them left, yunno ... scattered about Maryland, Florida, and Texas ...
There was L. Sprague de Camp's story about the knarley man... but
that was supposedly fiction....
???
>>>The fact that he violated his victim's rights (if, in fact, he is guilty.
>>>Let's not forget the incompetence for which the United States criminal
>>>justice system is *infamous*), does not give the state the right to
>>>violate his rights in return.
Clane
>>And exactly what "right" of his is being violated? As usual, in addition to
>>specifying the right Coughlin has in mind, I would add the usual questions
>>as to who (or what body) defined it, promulgated it, guards it, and enforces
>>it? There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Kelly knew whe was doing
>>when he did it, and that seems to be enough....
Coughlin
>OK? I'll bite. Tell us, Clane, where it is written that murder --
>indeed, killing of any kind is wrong. Take this to its logical
>conclusion, and your argument suggests that murderers don't deserve to
>punished at all, as it is only society's mores which dictate that
>killing is wrong.
As I have pointed out many, many times before, there is nothing in the
physical universe that unequivocally makes murder wrong and, in some
societies, many kinds of what we call murder are not considered
wrong. What makes murder wrong HERE is that the members of our
society, in the aggregate, consider it to be so, and have, through our
system of laws, therefore set up laws and punishments to deal with
it as a speciifc, and highly serious, kind of crime, sometimes meriting
the death penalty. No more. No less.
Coughlin
>You can't have it both ways.
I did not ask for such.
????
>>>>For the bleeding heards and Mummia lovers out there; when you speak so
>>>>eloquently of the poor unfortunates on death row why not include a few
>>>>of the reasons they are there in the first place?
Coughlin
>>>All right, I asked a similar question before, and received no
>>>response, except for a typically Jigsawesque stalk ... allow me to ask
>>>you the same question, in the hope of getting an intelligent answer.
>>>
>>>Tell us what benefit the victim enjoys, when his or her murderer is
>>>put to death. If someone on this group can come up with a reasonable
>>>answer to that, other than some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about
>>>"honouring the victim's", or some mendacious bullshit claiming that
>>>the execution will "deter" further killings, then I for one shall
>>>understand better, the position of those who get pleasure from
>>>state-sponsored homicide.
Clane
>>Coughlin has been around long enough to know the answer to this one too.
>>In addition to the immediate victim of the murder, the STATE is a victim as
>>well, losing the life of one of its citizens.
Coughlin
>I note that there is no legal framework to allow for a condemned
>person to be deprived of his citizenship, prior to his death at the
>hands of the state. Thus, each murder, if it ends in the execution of
>the criminal, results in the deaths of _two_ citizens (excluding the
>few cases where the condemned is a foreign national).
The difference is that the citizen-murderer, having deprived society in a
criminal way of one of its citizens, is no longer a welcome or useful
member of the society.
Clane
>>Note that, legally, murder is a crime
>>against the state, and even if the immediate victim manages deathbed
>>forgiveness of his or her assailant, the perpetrator can still be convicted
>>as well.
Coughlin
>Thus exposing as a sham the notion, proudly trumpeted by certain
>pro-death posters, that the death penalty "honours" the victim. If I
>were the victim of an attack (Don, put that little thing _away_ !),
>and asked on my death bed that my attacker not be executed, then to do
>so would be an insult to my memory.
Perhaps so, and certainly such evidence might be introduced at the time
of your murderer's trial as a mitigating factor. However, the crime would
remain the same, would still be a crime against the state, and could
still be prosecuted as such.
Clane
>>Thus, when the murderer is executed, though the deceased gains
>>no obvious material benefit, we the citizenry and our instrument, the state,
>>get several benefits.
Coughlin
>Which are ..?
A pointless question, as the answer followed immediately below.
Clane
>>Our collective sense of justice, as implemented through
>>our laws and judicial system, is satisfied.
Coughlin
>Anything vaguely scientific in there, Clane, or is that asking too
>much ..? :-)
There was not meant to be anything scientific there. The field of science
can help establish facts, but has nothing to offer on what is "just." As
I have pointed out elsewhere, the physical universe does not care
whether we kill one another or for what reasons we do so. Justice is
a construct of the human mind, combining the moral sensibilities of the
society that, through its laws and customs, implements a system for
accomplishing it.
Clane
>>Other side benefits include the absolute
>>guaranteed termination of a lethal hazard to society (the murderer) an
>>example we wish to set for others of our society's response to such murder,
>>and, to the extent that such an effect may exist, deterrence to whoever
>>might be deterred.
Coughlin
>You know fine well that no deterrence effect exists, ...
No, and Coughlin knows better as well. The most that can be said is that
any incremental deterrent effect the death penalty has, over and above
the deterrent effect of long-term incarceration, is not sufficiently enormous
to be demonstrated with high statistical confidence, given that less-then-
enormous incremental deterrent effects would be masked by the large
natural variations in the overall homicide rate and the poor control over
the sample groups that have been examined to date. Not the same
thing at all. There's a vast difference between saying there's no effect
and saying that whatever effect may exist cannot be proven with high
statistical confidence.
More Coughlin
>...so I shall take
>that last comment as a sop to the bloodthirsty bastards on this
>newsgroup, among whom I do not count you. As for the "example" you
>mention, there are ample documented cases where the execution of one
>murderer has acted well as an "example", causing a huge leap in the
>number of homicides in the period following.
And others where the rate has fallen. Given the large naturally occurring
variations in the homicide rate, you can find plenty of examples where,
immediately following an execution, the rate goes either way.