Case for the death penalty

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
As you can imagine the murders of these six people has been all over the news in Wa. state. This is a textbook example of a case where the death penalty should be used.
Couple charged with aggravated first-degree murder
The Associated Press
Published: December 28th, 2007 10:46 AM

After slaughtering their parents before their eyes, Joseph McEnroe apologized to his girlfriend’s young niece and nephew before shooting both point-blank in the head to end a Christmas Eve massacre, prosecutors alleged today as they filed aggravated first-degree murder charges.

Although he outlined in detail the attack that left six members of Michele Anderson’s family dead in a rural Carnation home, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg was at loss to say what drove her and McEnroe to the crimes to which they have confessed.

“In the end, what motive could you find that would make sense of the senseless slaying of the Anderson family?” Satterberg said in announcing that he was charging Anderson and McEnroe with the only crime punishable by death in Washington. Satterberg has 30 days to decide whether to seek the death penalty. “I pledge to give this case serious consideration for the state’s ultimate punishment.”

Arraignment for the two was scheduled for Jan. 9.

While long-standing bitterness and a perceived family debt might have been factors, the motive for the slayings might never be known.

Court documents said McEnroe, a store clerk, and Anderson, who is unemployed, told detectives they armed themselves on Christmas Eve and went to her parent’s home from the trailer where they lived on the parents’ rural property near Carnation, about 25 miles east of Seattle. There, they confronted Anderson’s parents, Wayne Anderson, 60, and Judy Anderson, 61, in their living room.

Michele Anderson told detectives her brother, a carpenter, owed her money she had loaned to him years earlier, and that she was upset with her parents because they did not take her side. Additionally, she said her parents were pressuring her to start paying rent for staying on their property.

“Michele stated that she was tired of everybody stepping on her,” the court papers say. “She stated that she was upset with her parents and her brother and that if the problems did not get resolved on Dec. 24, then her intent was definitely to kill everybody.”

Satterberg said Michele Anderson fired once at her father’s head but missed. McEnroe stepped in, leveled his gun and fatally shot Wayne Anderson in the head.

Judy Anderson heard the shots and ran from the back room where she had been wrapping gifts. She was shot by McEnroe, who apologized to her before shooting her again, this time in the head, the court documents said.

Satterberg said that during the next 30 to 45 minutes, the two dragged the bodies to a shed behind the house, used towels and carpets to sop up blood stains and awaited the arrival of the dead couple’s son, Scott, his wife, Erica — both 32 — and their 3-year-old son, Nathan, and 5-year-old daughter, Olivia, for a Christmas Eve visit.

Her brother and sister-in-law put up a brave struggle, according to the documents.

“Michele told detectives that Scott charged her when she pulled out the gun and that she shot him at least twice and maybe as many as four times.”

Michele then shot Erica Anderson twice, but she was able to crawl over the back of a couch to call 911.

McEnroe told detectives he tore the phone from Erica’s hands and destroyed it.

Huddling with her children, Erica Anderson pleaded with McEnroe not to shoot her, saying: “You don’t have to do this.”

McEnroe told her: “Yes, we do," and shot her in the head, according to the affidavit.

He then shot 5-year-old Olivia before turning to 3-year-old Nathan, who had picked up the batteries from the cordless phone his mother had used in her futile attempt to call for help.

“McEnroe told detectives that Nathan held the batteries up in one hand and gave ’... the look of complete comprehension ... as if he understood.' ” McEnroe than fired on last bullet through Nathan’s head, according to the affidavit.


When asked why he shot Erica, Olivia and Nathan, McEnroe told detectives three times: “I didn’t want them to turn us in,” according to the affidavit.

Michele Anderson told investigators “it was a combination of not wanting them to have to live with the memories and not wanting there to be any witnesses.”

After the killings, McEnroe and Anderson first drove north toward Canada, then south toward Oregon arriving at neither destination, then decided to go back and pretend to discover the bodies, Satterberg said.

When they arrived Wednesday, investigators were already there. Detectives, curious that neither McEnroe nor Michele Anderson asked what had happened at the bustling crime scene, began questioning them and they eventually confessed, according to the documents.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/240169.html
 
Werbung:

heyjude

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
226
Location
Pacific Northwest, on the beach
I am not opposed to the death penalty on principle. There are a couple of people in prison that I would personally kill, given the opportunity. Number one would be Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. The man who killed Bobby Kennedy.

The fact is though, that people get sentenced to death who are innocent. Given that, I think that we should abolish the death penalty, and stick to life without benifit of parole. I am not willing to kill one innocent man in order to also kill those who deserve to die. It is not necessary. And I truly believe that life in prison is worse than death. American prisons are not nice places.
 

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
I am not opposed to the death penalty on principle. There are a couple of people in prison that I would personally kill, given the opportunity. Number one would be Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. The man who killed Bobby Kennedy.

The fact is though, that people get sentenced to death who are innocent. Given that, I think that we should abolish the death penalty, and stick to life without benifit of parole. I am not willing to kill one innocent man in order to also kill those who deserve to die. It is not necessary. And I truly believe that life in prison is worse than death. American prisons are not nice places.

For the death penalty, why not change the standard for conviction to guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. DNA evidence from independent labs could be used. The bar has to be set high enough so that their is no possibility of an innocent man dying.

In this case, these two have already confessed, and there is absolutely no question as to their guilt. Reading the details, this crime is particularly heinous. The murdering of two children after allowing the children to witness the murder of their parents.

The thought of life in prison may seem worse to us, but some people get along rather well as they adapt after a period of adjustment.

These two don't deserve to live.
 

numinus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
2,525
I am not opposed to the death penalty on principle. There are a couple of people in prison that I would personally kill, given the opportunity. Number one would be Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. The man who killed Bobby Kennedy.

The fact is though, that people get sentenced to death who are innocent. Given that, I think that we should abolish the death penalty, and stick to life without benifit of parole. I am not willing to kill one innocent man in order to also kill those who deserve to die. It is not necessary. And I truly believe that life in prison is worse than death. American prisons are not nice places.

Unfortunately for you, a principle is so because it is entirely OBJECTIVE.

What you are saying, in effect, is that you do not oppose the principle of personal vengeance being employed in the criminal justice system.
 

heyjude

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
226
Location
Pacific Northwest, on the beach
There really is no other reason for the death penalty. People want revenge. The need is so strong that centuries ago, we took punishment out of the hands of families who had a member raped or murdered. They were too likely to subject an accused to horrible punishment. And given the nature of punishments inflicted by our ancestors, it must have been horrible. Societies decided to allow only impartial judges to inflict punishment.

Non the less, vengence is alive and well in all trials. I have been on juries. They get seriously angry. I am opposed to that in some, but not all cases. It is unjust when it involves the less likable among us. In some cases blacks are punished all out of proportion to their crime, or far more likely to be convicted.

I was on a jury that ruled against a man, IMO, because he was gay. Or rather, precieved to be gay. He was a hairdresser. We on the jury made that an issue. We weren't asked to. But it was immediately brough up.

DNA is not available in all cases. Juries make decisions based on their own feelings. Some so deeply buried they don't even know they are there. Until juries become perfect, I think we should avoid the only penalty that can never be reversed. Innocent people have been killed. I don't want to kill an innocent.
 
Werbung:
Top