What should the penalty have been?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 7:05 am

Comments invited.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 3:29 pm

I picked life in prison with no parole. People usually do who have a doubt.
But think about her life before prison and her life IN prison. I don't think there'd be too much difference except she might be eating better!

She can read and have visitors. Where would she have served her time and what was it like? Did being rich buy a better prison experience?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:34 am

I picked life in prison with parole.

Lizzie's defence mad it clear that there was no insanity in her family, I assume the belief in 1892 is that it had to run in the family in order for someone to be insane. So, no insane asylum for our Lizzie.

After the Bathsheba Spooner episode in Massachusetts, I think the state was a bit hesitant about hanging women. Somehow I couldn't see that happening to Lizzie.

Life in prison with no parole came to me next, but then I thought, even Charles Manson has come up for parole, so, Lizzie would have possibly gotten like treatment.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:02 pm

I voted for death. (This is assuming her guilt could be established beyond ANY doubt. In real life, I would have voted for life imprisonment with possibility of parole, as it is of course impossible to establish guilt without any doubt in this case. (If you're going to keep someone alive, then by all means, allow for the possibility of their reform. It must be admitted that she never killed again, if indeed she did kill (which I believe she did).))

Nevertheless, the crime was heinous, insufficiently if at all provoked and clearly premeditated.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:13 pm

Further thoughts:

The fact that she never killed again proves nothing: for one thing, she had no need to, having achieved her purpose. For another, she dared not. You don't get away with that kind of thing twice.

joe · Post by **joe** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:59 am

Only that sort of crime could have been commited by a madman (woman). If I were on the jury at the time, I think I would have voted for the nuthouse. Wigpickers would sure have fun with Lizzie. And just think what Freud might've suggested!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:35 pm

There's a crime locally (well- in Central Florida) right now which was the slaughter of 6 people in a house.
They were mostly young people.
I don't know who they suspect yet because I haven't seen the news today. But my guess is whoever did this was high or wanting to get high (meaning coming down.)
............
If Lizzie did this deed- I keep thinking of her as high.
And if it was Morse or Butcher Davis or even Billy Borden, I'd think they were somewhat drunk (like the chronically drunk) as these substances remove or lessen inhibitions.

Bundy did it- Neilson did it- Dahmer did it- I think Gacy did it...drank before killing.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:59 am

Well, there were certainly enough patent medicines available during the times that contained narcotic substances. Do you see it more as something Lizzie was already addicted to, or something she may have been taking during the week say for menstrual cramps, that did a number on her?

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:42 pm

Laudanum would have certainly given everything a rosy glow. In addition to the many narcotics still sold over the counter, there were special "lithia springs," presumably containing some natural mineral, but actually doctored with lithium! (This was done at Lithia Springs in Temple, NH, and doubtless in several others. No wonder the spa visitors left feeling so good.) A nip of something could account for Lizzie's unusual calm. . . .

Kat, is the murder you mention the one where 6 people were kiilled over a stolen Xbox? People don't seem to need much motive any more, do they?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:02 pm

Our early reports were that another house was broken into nearby and these people (or some teens) were living there as if they owned the place. Neighbors thought they belonged because they swam in the pool and had parties in the house. The people who owned the house were up north and their granddughter was supposed to visit the empty house and clean the pool, etc.
We first heard that this girl visited the house as usual, found these people living there, and called her grandparents and the police.
The intimation was that these kids came after her for exposing them to the police from their trespass.
That was the first story we heard but now it's changed. They don't talk about the other house anymore and make it sound like a revenge killing for the music box and some clothing.

So now it's confusing to me. I figure more time and more info is needed. Sometimes the earliest story is truer than a spin later- we'll see.
It's tragic, anyway.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:07 pm

This topic is *What should the penalty be?* and it's appropos because the Sheriff publically says this should be an obvious death penalty case and then the families of victims say that's too good for these killers- that they should have to die the way their loved one died...beaten with basevball bats and stuck with knives.

4 of these people went to school together.
2 victims and 2 killers!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:09 pm

As to whether Lizzie was addicted to something, yes I think that would explain her behavior if she killed. This horrible type of murder usually has a spur- alcohol or drugs.

As I said, if it was a man, the same might hold true.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:11 pm

Kat @ Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:02 pm wrote:Our early reports were that another house was broken into nearby and these people (or some teens) were living there as if they owned the place. Neighbors thought they belonged because they swam in the pool and had parties in the house. The people who owned the house were up north and their granddughter was supposed to visit the empty house and clean the pool, etc.
We first heard that this girl visited the house as usual, found these people living there, and called her grandparents and the police.
The intimation was that these kids came after her for exposing them to the police from their trespass.

The latest news right now is that the last victim identified was the worst beaten and it was just verified that she was the *original target* as she was the one who called the cops on the squatters at her grandmother's house. The grandmother lives 1/2 the year in Maine.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:35 pm

They say that women are harder than men when it comes to judging other women. I don't know whether that applies to the trial itself or to the sentencing or both.

We should have tested that theory by breaking the poll up into two polls, one for the women and one for the men.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:42 pm

Re. Florida massacre: The father of the primary target lives near us. The poor man was on the front page yesterday. Sometimes it's a sad small world.

--Lyddie

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:41 pm

Can you imagine moving to Florida and getting murdererd?
What was she here? Like 2 months?
Her father was on the local news here today because he was very upset that he wasn't informed as to what was going on but the problem was his daughter remained unidentified for 3 or 4 days.
He was called twice- but not enough in anyone's book to keep him informed thru that long ordeal.
.....

I watched a show tonight that went into the jury room with cameras to decide a possible death penalty case. It was the second & final night of this particular show on this case. Did anyone see that?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:53 pm

I did see that show. I wonder if it was "real" because if it was...wow...what an intense show ! I woul imagine that serving on a capital murder case would be about as stressful as almost anything we could imagine. I've only been called to jury duty once...and the guy got very nervous when we came in...and decided to go with the judge deciding his case rather than a jury.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:33 am

I had an awful feeling that woman who talked so much was acting that way because of the cameras! That would actually influence the decision!

In the Borden case they asked each prospective juror (and I think they still do) if they had any scruples about deciding a case which could lead to the death penalty. Those who were against the death penalty were excused by the court.
This lady seemed to be saying that she could not impose the death penalty, even tho she voted two counts of murder, premeditated, and fit the description of mass murder because there were 2 deaths.
She would not agree on death or life w/o parole. She held out for life and 25, or something like that.

That goes back to this poll here, where I said I thought juries gave life w/o parole if they had a doubt- and would not give death.

That one lady drove me crazy. She didn't stick to her oath, or follow the rules.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:06 am

Yes, that same lady drove me nuts too. She kept claiming to have "beliefs" from which she would NOT budge. Yet she must have passed the "could you vote for the death penalty" question in order to even get on the jury to begin with. Then that cry baby act of going to the judge to ask to be excused...then going back to the jury room and saying "oh ok...I can vote guilty of murder" was like you say...maybe for the camera ? Then all of a sudden during the penalty phase, even though they had voted for a murder conviction, she decided that she would NOT go for death or life w/o parole. Because of her the Judge had to decide the penalty which was life without parole...which is what all the other jurors had ended up agreeing on anyway. I agree that having a camera in this jury room seemed to affect the jurors decisions. I still wonder if it was a "real case".

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:17 pm

That's exactly what I meant about her *beliefs*. How did she get past the voir dire?

I have a crummy few TV channels on my cable- the basic minimum- so shows like this are cool, for me.
They said it was a real case, and there's going to be another.

(That defendent was creepy, wasn't he? When I was twice voire-dired, I could barely get past the idea that the guy must be guilty if the state got this far as to prosecute him and get me out of bed at 6 to show up!)

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:16 pm

I voted for "death by hanging". That would be if there were DNA back then and they found the hatchet under her bed, and she had blood smears on her face, and her fingerprints were all over the place. It'd have to be very clear she did it.

I hear hanging is a nasty way to go, tho. Sometimes the person would choke for like 20 minutes. That's terrible.

I thought she would get "death by the electric chair", if she were sentenced to death?

Yes, it would be interesting to divide the poll up between men and women.

I have to say that if I were a juror on the Borden case, and heard just what they heard, I would have had to vote her "not guilty".

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:01 pm

had i been on the jury, i would have insisted on NOT GUILTY. but if so judged -- call me old fashioned -- i would never have wanted the death penalty for her. and i would have considered this quite objective.

let me put it this way -- if we could PROVE the lady guilty -- would we be talking about this?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:52 am

Well there is still a push to try to solve the case with modern forensic techniques. It's possible, but not probable.

Actually, in the opening statement, all that stuff which was later disallowed was brought up by the state! All the poison stuff and paraphrasing of Lizzie's inquest testimony- the parts where she changed her story. So the jury did hear that and probably waited for the evidence as testimony- but never got that- so they were exposed, shall we say, to the inconsistencies and either disregarded it because it was not evidence (rightly) or were not curious about those parts of the case at all, even after being exposed!
It's odd and against human nature I think. If women were on that jury they may have split, and hung.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:42 am

Kat,

I am glad you brought this up. Do you think if Lizzie would have had an all female jury that she would have been convicted ?

Gary, in your experience, does the sex of a jury have a significance in their making the decision ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:41 am

I can't envision that anyone would ever get an all-female jury, but even 6 and 6- I'd think the jury would not be able to reach an agreement.
Which would mean still no conviction.
I think Knowlton expected a jury who could not agree.
But yes, I think women on the jury at that time and place would have been harder on Lizzie.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:18 am

Interesting you should bring up a female jury, Tracy! I just read a newspaper article about a group of 12 women (wives of police, prosecutors, etc.) who sat together throughout the trial and were referred to as the "amen corner" by the sympathetic press. They all wanted her head! I think women found it easier to believe a woman capable of such things. After all, may women then have butchering their own chickens--a fact that men preferred not to contemplate. They had stronger stomachs than the men gave them credit (or discredit) for. Also, I wonder if women who were equally dissatisfied with their lots resented Lizzie. Not that they would ever consider killing their fathers or husbands, but that they felt virtuous for not having done so. Kind of a, "What makes her so special?" attitude.

--Lyddie

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:56 am

Hi Tracy

The general rule for the defense is to try to seat as few women as possible when the defendant is a woman.

Gary

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:52 am

Wow...and I thought we'd be a more nurturing/sensitive group. Thanks for the info !

Tracy...

Gary · Post by **Gary** » Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:21 pm

Hi Tracy

Sometimes I think that women are better at seeing through false fronts put on by other women.

Gary

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:13 am

Sometimes they enjoy it, too, Gary.

--Lyddie

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:28 pm

Come to this link again due to its being posted today.
An update on the massacred victims:
The news today was about the families trying to celebrate Christmas without all these young loved ones. It was pitiful.
One family found, during "renovation" a disposable camera recently, from the youths in the death house. They showed the last pics taken and they were of happy, smiling youths with their futures before them. That must have been bittersweet to find that camera.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

What should the penalty have been?

Assuming Lizzie was found guilty, what should have been her punishment?

What should the penalty have been?