[Hoot Gibson]

:Thumbs: With your last two posts, I think we have found some common ground.

:Thumbs: I am strongly pro-capital punishment but its (mostly liberal) critics make some very valid points.

I think that that the death penalty should be applied more often but defendants who can afford good lawyers usually manage to avoid death sentences, even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. When the evidence in murder cases is overwhelmingly against a defendant, then the defendant's wealth should play no part in the state's decision to pursue the death penalty.

In the trial that I mentioned above, the following facts were not disputed:

1. The murderer parked several hundred feet away from the victim's apartment, which clearly indicated premeditation.

2. The murderer's victim (his girlfriend) had given him her car to allow him to return home to Arkansas after breaking up with him.

3. The victim was entertaining a female visitor who witnessed the initial shooting.

4. The murderer kicked in the victim's door.

5. The murderer shot the victim in the head five times at close range. Amazingly, she survived the gunshot wounds, and managed to escape on foot.

6. The murderer reloaded his pistol and followed the victim's trail of blood, shot a neighbor who gave her refuge, found the victim hiding in a closet, and then finished her off with another shot to the head.

7. The murderer drove away with his pistol still loaded and was arrested by police a short time later. (Despite his later claim of intending to commit suicide, he surrendered the gun peacefully.)

The murderer claimed that he parked so far away from the crime scene because he had intended to commit suicide in front of the victim and did not want her to call the police. He said that when he found that his girlfriend's curtains were closed and she refused to let him into her apartment, he just snapped.

The murderer's defense was temporary insanity, although his attorney failed to call a single witness to support his claim.

IMO, it was very unfortunate that this guy was not eligible for the death penalty. The evidence was overwhelmingly against him and he obviously lied to the jury during his trial about his state of mind. His guilt was not in doubt and yet his attorney decided that it was a good idea to let him take the stand to testify as to his own insanity.

With facts such as these, a single murder should warrant the death penalty. The state should never pursue the death penalty in cases where the evidence is not similarly overwhelming.