Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Death Sentence Vacated

The News-JournalOnline.com reported on the judge's ruling which vacated a 1982 death sentence.

DAYTONA BEACH -- A local judge vacated the sentence of one of Volusia County's oldest death penalty cases, finding that Ted Herring's IQ is too low for him to be executed for killing a convenience store clerk in 1981.

Last month, Circuit Judge Joseph Will signed the order setting aside the death sentence, which had been handed down after Herring's trial in February 1982.

Circuit Judge S. James Foxman followed a jury's 8-4 recommendation that Herring be executed for shooting Norman Dale Hoeltzel in the left side of the head with a .22-caliber bullet.


Well, I guess that settles the question about whether a .22 can kill someone. What it doesn't settle is why the death-penalty proponents insist on killing these pathetic criminals.

"There is ample evidence in the record that throughout his life, Herring has suffered from significant limitations in adaptive functioning in multiple areas," Will wrote in the ruling.

Of course it's being appealed to the State Supreme Court. If it's upheld, Ted Herring will serve a life sentence.

What's your opinion? Should we be executing people with diminished capacity? Do you believe like many hard-liners that if a person is capable of doing what Mr. Herring did, then they are capable of paying the ultimate price?

Please leave a comment.

6 comments:

  1. There are two reasons for the death penalty: vindictive punishment and deterrance.

    I would side that the reason for the continued existance of the death penalty is vindictive punishment.

    As for deterrance, criminals do not think in the same way law abiding citizens do. They tend to despise responsibility for their actions and put the blame on others. Therefore anything that would deter a normal person will not work to deter a criminal: whether that is carrying a concealed firearm or the death penalty.

    So, any argument about the death penalty again becomes emotionally charged rather than based upon reason.

    It is far better to address what causes crime (or terrorism) and creates criminals (terrorists).

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Well, I guess that settles the question about whether a .22 can kill someone."

    I don't think anyone said that a .22 couldn't kill a person. I would even guess that it kills more than most other rounds, due to it's popularity. What has been said, is that the .22 is a poor choice for that purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't have any problem with diminished capacity being a reason to avoid the death penalty, as long as the alternative is life without parole.

    ..and the discussion was on .22 short, a version with roughly half the power of a standard .22. It has been obsolete for anything other than target shooting for around 100 years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mikeb: "Well, I guess that settles the question about whether a .22 can kill someone."

    RuffRidr: I don't think anyone said that a .22 couldn't kill a person. I would even guess that it kills more than most other rounds, due to it's popularity. What has been said, is that the .22 is a poor choice for that purpose.

    Indeed: No one said that a .22 couldn't kill a person. A .22 "long rifle" to the head will often kill. A .22 "short"
    to the torso will rarely kill, unlike many other cartridges commonly used for defense in modern times.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "There are two reasons for the death penalty: vindictive punishment and deterrance."

    There is a third reason: The purging effect.

    The death penalty helps us get rid of the human equivalent of mad dogs; People whose existence is so dangerous, that society as a whole is better off without them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, I find my self agreeing with Laci on a several points here.

    "As for deterrance, criminals do not think in the same way law abiding citizens do. They tend to despise responsibility for their actions and put the blame on others. Therefore anything that would deter a normal person will not work to deter a criminal: whether that is carrying a concealed firearm or the death penalty."

    True, criminals do not think like normal people do. They do not have the same values and they do not take responsibility for their actions. I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrent as most criminals are short sighted. If we still had public executions on the street, that may be more of a deterrent but I do not think it serves as an effective deterrent as it is applied today.

    As for the part about concealed carry, I agree in most cases that it does not serve as a deterrent much at this time. The reason I believe that is that in spite of the fact that most states have a form of concealed carry (except for two of course) there are still too many states that issue permits only to the well connected and wealthy. Shall issue states providing licenses for all that qualify and seek them have gone a long way but shall issue is not much older than your average college student. There are still not enough of us out there to effectively deter crime but that is improving every day.

    "So, any argument about the death penalty again becomes emotionally charged rather than based upon reason.

    It is far better to address what causes crime (or terrorism) and creates criminals (terrorists)."


    The same can be said of gun control as well. Since criminals do not think like we do, they are undeterred from owning, carrying and using a gun illegally where as the normal person is the only one that will jump through any legal loops that are presented. Most anti gun advocates present only emotional arguments devoid of reason as well.

    I am not a big fan of the use of the death penalty though I would stop short of calling for its abolishment. I simply do not trust the state to be right even half the time, especially with such an irrevocable issue.

    ReplyDelete