Plan B Forum

Only woman on Georgia's death row is executed

JACKSON, Ga. (AP) — The only woman on Georgia's death row was executed early Wednesday morning, making her the first woman put to death by the state in seven decades.

Kelly Renee Gissendaner was pronounced dead by injection of pentobarbital at 12:21 a.m. at the state prison in Jackson. She was convicted of murder in the February 1997 slaying of her husband after she conspired with her lover, who stabbed Douglas Gissendaner to death.

Kelly Gissendaner, 47, sobbed as she said she loved her children and apologized to Douglas Gissendaner's family, saying she hopes they can find some peace and happiness. She also addressed her lawyer, Susan Casey, who was among the witnesses.

"I just want to say God bless you all and I love you, Susan. You let my kids know I went out singing 'Amazing Grace,'" Gissendaner said.

Prison Warden Bruce Chatman left the execution chamber at 12:11 a.m. Records from previous executions indicate that the lethal drug is administered within about a minute of the warden leaving the room.

Gissendaner was previously scheduled for execution Feb. 25, but that was delayed because of a threat of winter weather. Her execution was reset for March 2, but corrections officials postponed that execution "out of an abundance of caution" because the execution drug appeared "cloudy."

Douglas Gissendaner's family said in a statement Monday that he is the victim and that Kelly Gissendaner received an appropriate sentence.

"As the murderer, she's been given more rights and opportunity over the last 18 years than she ever afforded to Doug who, again, is the victim here," the statement says. "She had no mercy, gave him no rights, no choices, nor the opportunity to live his life."

Kelly Gissendaner repeatedly pushed Owen in late 1996 to kill her husband rather than just divorcing him as Owen suggested, prosecutors have said. Acting on her instructions, Owen ambushed Douglas Gissendaner at Gissendaner's home, forced him to drive to a remote area and stabbed him multiple times, prosecutors said.

Investigators looking into the killing zeroed in on Owen once they learned of his affair with Kelly Gissendaner. He initially denied involvement but eventually confessed and implicated Kelly Gissendaner.

http://news.yahoo.com/board-meets-cleme ... 43034.html

This really got me:

With just hours remaining before Gissendaner is set to be put to death, her children are continuing to fight for her life. "My brothers and I really want my mom to live. She is all that we have left," Kayla Gissendaner, Kelly's 25-year-old daughter, said in a video message asking that her mother be spared.

Kayla's father, Douglas Gissendaner, was stabbed to death when she was just 7 years old. Kelly Gissendaner was convicted of arranging for her lover, Gregory Owen, to kill her husband. For many years, Kayla refused to speak to her mom. Six years ago, she and her brother Dakota had a change of heart.

http://www.refinery29.com/2015/09/94842 ... th-penalty

"She is all that we have left"

Well now gee whiz, why is that? Oh yeah:

Kelly Gissendaner repeatedly pushed Owen in late 1996 to kill her husband rather than just divorcing him as Owen suggested, prosecutors have said. Acting on her instructions, Owen ambushed Douglas Gissendaner at Gissendaner's home, forced him to drive to a remote area and stabbed him multiple times

ETA:

BTW, out of respect for the memory of the victim, I deliberately did not copy and paste all the crapolla in the AP article designed to make the reader feel sympathy for this calculating stone cold murderer. If you want to read that garbage, you can follow the link.

So when the victim's parents say his killer should be put to death, you applaud them, but when the victim's children say otherwise, they merit your scorn.

This is why the entire concept of victim impact statements should be tossed on the trash, because they were only ever meant to be taken into account if they could be used against the perpetrator.

I applauded what the victim's parents said because they very succinctly made the operative points and sharply put the focus where it belongs...The power and merit of the words would stand on their own, no matter who said them.

My reaction to what her kids said wasn't intended so much as scorn as a reality check...

Given the facts of the murder, it's clear that the late Mrs. Gissendaner was a highly skilled and persuasive manipulator. I believe it's very likely that just as she manipulated her lover to carry out her husband's murder, she has spent the past few years manipulating her children in an effort to get them to help try to save her neck.

If she had truly cared about her children, perhaps she could have expressed that by, oh, I don't know, maybe not having their father murdered? (They were 7 and 9 at the time)

She's an evil bitch, I don't dispute that.

I don't know what it took for the victim's children to come to the view that his killer should not be executed. All I am saying is that their feelings on the matter are not automatically invalidated just because you support the death penalty.

And the grandparents, frankly, seem not to have inherited the empathy gene, because regardless of what they feel about their son's killer, it was an act of complete selfishness on their part to have added to their grandchildren's pain by advocating publicly that their mother be killed as well. If they wanted to ensure that they would never have a relationship with all that remains behind to remind them of their son, then they surely succeeded.

Yes, I want to be listed with these countries.

10 countries with the most executions
Death penalty around the world
Country Total executed, 2007-12 Total sentenced to death, 2007-12
CHINA THOUSANDS THOUSANDS
IRAN 1,663 156
SAUDI ARABIA 423 54
IRAQ 256 1,420
UNITED STATES 220 504
PAKISTAN 171 1,497
YEMEN 152 109
KOREA (NORTH) 105 0
VIETNAM 58 258
LIBYA 39 0
SOURCE: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

"She had no mercy, gave him no rights, no choices, nor the opportunity to live his life."

Jim--I honestly don't understand what this adds to the discussion; that she was a horrible person who killed without mercy? OK. But that she didn't give him "any rights" or "opportunities" means what, that we should do the same to her? That makes little sense to me; he may be talking from an abyss of pain and rage, but that doesn't mean we should turn into her and do the same things she did. We really should be better than that, don't you think? And yet you applaud it.

I have been quite open about my views on the death penalty, but if we are to have one it should be performed humanely and only after all the safeguards are observed, no matter what the person sentenced to death did.

she has spent the past few years manipulating her children in an effort to get them to help try to save her neck.

Sure, or maybe they forgave her or perhaps just don't want to see her killed whatever she did. I won't blithely conclude they have been manipulated; humans do have a capacity to act humanely and/or forgive even horrible things.

C'mon BigRR, actual facts don't work into the DP advocates narrative. There is no redemption. There is no forgiveness. There is no rehabilitation. Human beings should just be tossed on the trash heap and executed because of their crimes. And lets remove due process, too, because we all know if you've been accused of/charged with murder you're a murderer forever.

Jim, you claim to be a Catholic, yet the Church is opposed to capital punishment and the Holy Father himself asked that Georgia spare her life. How do you reconcile that?

I continue to believe that the sentence should be "Death by life imprisonment" - no more executions. Having said that...

if we are to have one [death penalty] it should be performed humanely and only after all the safeguards are observed

The problem I see with those words Big RR is that they are weasels. They are used by some to mean "there is no humane way - therefore no executions" and "here's another safeguard that isn't being met so no executions".

The two 'allowances' are in fact turned into absolute prohibitions by those who believe that the death penalty itself is inhumane (no matter how conducted) and that there is no end to safeguards that must be implemented.

I don't say that you are amongst those people - merely that the two grounds you offer are in fact designed to be disablers

OK Meade, I will qualify it, it should be performed "as humanely as possible" meaning we should take every effort to assure that the person does not needlessly suffer. It is clear that there will be some suffering in any execution, but it should be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Just as I think euthanasia can be performed humanely, so do I think executions can, though I wish they were not performed at all.

As for safeguards, I am content to rely on the legal system for those; taking into account that execution is th eultimate penalty.

Often we seem to talk past each other. I clearly don't explain what I'm on about in any clear fashion. The point was not to have you amend your statements or explain them.

The point is that the statement (fine as it is) is utterly open-ended, not matter how it's rephrased. You don't mean it to be that (I believe) but it is.

The point is that to DP opponents there is NO POSSIBLE humane way... and they will always come up with demands for yet another legal safeguard.

Your apparently reasonable statement - with every good intention - is just a wonderful open door for DP absolutists to work on a decent fellow. Eventually, one who adheres to it will be open to easy persuasion that, "Oh you're right - THAT method is indeed not humane enough. Halt - until we find a humane enough method".

Likewise, there is no end to the perceived need for "safeguards". I think if one must have a death penalty, exploding sufficient C4 strapped to a person's head would do the job with the minimum of pain, discomfort or chance of suffering - let alone failure.

Reminder: I oppose the DP, other than by "life imprisonment until you die"

Sue U wrote:Jim, you claim to be a Catholic, yet the Church is opposed to capital punishment and the Holy Father himself asked that Georgia spare her life. How do you reconcile that?

Funny that I don't get asked that question around here when I say that I'm in favor of abortion being legal....

The answer for both is the same; I don't agree with every position that the Church takes; few Catholics do.

Meade--I don't think we're talking past each other; I do think my statement connotes that in looking at execution methods, we should choose the most humane available. Indeed, I do think that has been the policy of the US in the implementation of the DP; many of the earlier "humane" methods (such as the firing squad or hanging) relied too heavily of the executioner so there was a movement toward method that did not rely heavily on such skill (the switch from beheading by ax or sword to the guillotine was also an example of this). As some of these methods appeared not to be as humane as promoted (such as lethal gas) the methodology progressed. Surely some who oppose the DP will argue there can be no humane execution, but I am not one of them; nevertheless, I will insist upon the use of trained executioners to perform the methods, lest there be needless suffering. And in the future if methods arise that cause less suffering, we should implement them. I do think we should look for more humane methods, but would not insist we stop executions until those methods are found (if your C4 method were found to work more humanely, I would agree it should be implemented).

Likewise, re the legal safeguards; yes, it does take some time to progress through them, but what's the rush? Why not be certain the laws and legal standards are complied with? Some guilty parties might well get off, but it makes it much less likely an innocent person will be executed.

Are these statements open ended? Perhaps, but not deliberately so. Quite frankly I think imprisoned persons have righ to humane treatment as well.

I wish more people would accept life without parole as a punishment preferable to the DP, but some will not. but as long as we have a DP

But that she didn't give him "any rights" or "opportunities" means what, that we should do the same to her?

Who said that? She's had 18 years worth of rights and opportunities; time for justice to be done.

C'mon BigRR, actual facts don't work into the DP advocates narrative.

Well, I'll grant that's frequently the case when it comes to the opponents of the DP, but for me they are absolutely central and essential. Here again are the relevant facts in this case:

Kelly Gissendaner repeatedly pushed Owen in late 1996 to kill her husband rather than just divorcing him as Owen suggested, prosecutors have said. Acting on her instructions, Owen ambushed Douglas Gissendaner at Gissendaner's home, forced him to drive to a remote area and stabbed him multiple times

There is no rehabilitation.

Death row is not a place where "rehabilitation" is even relevant. Death Row is where you get sent when the crime you have committed is considered by a jury of your peers to be so heinous that justice demands rehabilitation not be considered to be part of the equation. Crimes like this one.

And lets remove due process, too,

Lord Jim wrote:

Sue U wrote:Jim, you claim to be a Catholic, yet the Church is opposed to capital punishment and the Holy Father himself asked that Georgia spare her life. How do you reconcile that?

Funny that I don't get asked that question around here when I say that I'm in favor of abortion being legal....

The answer for both is the same; I don't agree with every position that the Church takes; few Catholics do.

They are easily separable issues, most obviously in that one is a personal medical decision and the other is a state penal function. You might view both as immoral, but to outlaw abortion solely on morality grounds would require interference with an individual's fundamental liberty interest; the state has no such liberty interest in capital punishment.

Why do you favor capital punishment? What goal does it achieve? What public policy interest does it serve? How is it the best of all options?

ETA:

Lord Jim wrote:Death row is not a place where "rehabilitation" is even relevant. Death Row is where you get sent when the crime you have committed is considered by a jury of your peers to be so heinous that justice demands rehabilitation not be considered to be part of the equation. Crimes like this one.

And yet the actual murderer -- the guy who did the stabbing -- got a life sentence. So that's justice?

And yet the actual murderer -- the guy who did the stabbing -- got a life sentence. So that's justice?

I was wondering that myself.
I am guessing he cut a deal.

They are easily separable issues, blah blah blah

My take away from that is "It's okay for you to disagree with a position of your church so long as it's also one I disagree with and your disagreement is based on reasoning that I approve of. Otherwise not so much."


1.Why do you favor capital punishment?

I have addressed this many, many times before, but the short answer is (because I don't have time for the long answer) is because as a general principal, a decent respect for the value of human life demands that those who commit premeditated murder make their own lives forfeit.

2.What goal does it achieve?

Justice.

3. What public policy interest does it serve?

See the answer to question 2.

4. How is it the best of all options?

Because it is the most just.

4.the guy who did the stabbing -- got a life sentence. So that's justice?

Certainly not. In a perfectly just world, he would have received the DP as well. (My suspicion is that the reason he didn't get it was the result of a deal for him to testify against the mastermind of the crime. The person without who's actions the crime would never have happened and who otherwise might have escaped justice completely.)

But just because person B doesn't get the full measure of just punishment that they deserve, doesn't mean that person A shouldn't as well.

Lord Jim wrote:

They are easily separable issues, blah blah blah

My take away from that is "It's okay for you to disagree with a position of your church so long as it's also one I disagree with and your disagreement is based on reasoning that I approve of. Otherwise not so much."

Not at all. In fact, you are the one who said it's okay for you to take a pick-and-choose attitude with respect to your own Church's teachings. And in fact, I admire the principles and consistency of the Catholic Church's "Web-of-Life" philosophy and its regard for the sanctity of life. If you want to ignore it, that's your business between you and your church; I couldn't care less beyond establishing the basis for your point of view -- i.e., whether you subscribe to that moral outlook as your own. My approach to these issues is different and does not depend on the moral precepts of a religion. Whether or not your conclusion on the death penalty coincides with mine is immaterial; I just want to know how you got there.

Lord Jim wrote:1.Why do you favor capital punishment?

I have addressed this many, many times before, but the short answer is (because I don't have time for the long answer) is because as a general principal, a decent respect for the value of human life demands that those who commit premeditated murder make their own lives forfeit.

2.What goal does it achieve?

Justice.

3. What public policy interest does it serve?

See the answer to question 2.

4. How is it the best of all options?

Because it is the most just.

4.the guy who did the stabbing -- got a life sentence. So that's justice?

Certainly not. In a perfectly just world, he would have received the DP as well.

So your only metric for "justice" is "an eye for an eye"? Doesn't "a decent respect for the value of human life" include the value of the life of the murderer as well? Or is that now completely valueless?

Most of the G-20 believe that they have 'justice' without the death penalty. Perhaps it is just a matter of education.


yrs,
rubato

The actual murderer in this case is going to be eligible for parole in 8 years; granted he may not get it upon first application, but it's relevant that he was not sentenced to LWOP, but to life with possibility of parole.

I'm not saying the woman was innocent, and neither did she - she took full responsibility for her actions in urging her then BF to commit the murder. However, she didn't actually participate in the killing and he is therefore much more culpable. One of the GA appeals court judges who ruled against her changed his mind over the years and felt it was inappropriate to execute someone who didn't actually commit a murder.

She wasn't asking for release, only for LWOP. She's been a model inmate, gotten an education and was counseling younger inmates. She had rehabilitated and was being useful within the prison society.

Her children's pleas for clemency should have been heeded; the death penalty is a broken system that costs far more in real dollars than it will ever be worth.