Ellington

Just hours before officials were scheduled to execute Mississippi death row inmate Robert Simon Jr. Tuesday, a federal appeals court blocked the execution.

Three 5th U.S. Court of Appeals judges in New Orleans signed an order preventing the execution from taking place, but did not provide a reason for the decision, the Associated Press reported yesterday.

On Monday, Simon asked the court to block his execution in order for the court to thoroughly review his mental-health claims.


Simon is charged in the 1990 murder of a Quitman County family: Carl Parker, his wife, Bobbie Jo, their son, Gregory and daughter, Charlotte.

Previous Comments

ID

163628

Comment

What???? Does a person really need to know he's being killed? Does knowing aid them or the victim in any way? I suspect I'd rather not know. Should we start informing the enemy in battle of our intentions before taking them out too? Did Bin Laden know? Did we announce our ill intentions before hand. Did he have the capacity to discern this on his own? Did he get an examination to make sure? Just asking! I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I'm ignant anyway no matter what. What about the victims? Is the gentlemen innocent? What you think, Bubba? Or perhaps Ms. Mott, the JFP death guru or expert?

Author

Walt

Date

2011-05-25T16:46:44-06:00

ID

163630

Comment

Walt- Guilty is guilty, whether he's crazy or not. That's a lame excuse, in my opinion. Give him the needle.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-05-25T17:04:34-06:00

ID

163633

Comment

I think he should have been at room temperature by now.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2011-05-26T07:58:43-06:00

ID

163634

Comment

I am torn on the Death Penalty. I see the irony of punishing killing by killing - but it is an effective deterrent. Also, are we to reward murderers with three square meals a day, free cable and education for life? Then there is the question of innocent people being put to death. How to prevent that and still have justice? If someone kills a family of four, they should be permanently removed from society by the least expensive methods available. Someone being unable to tell between right and wrong makes it all the more imperative.

Author

BobbyKearan

Date

2011-05-26T08:06:50-06:00

ID

163649

Comment

An effective deterrent? The murder rate is higher in states with the death penalty than in states that don't have the death penalty.

Author

Tre

Date

2011-05-26T13:05:12-06:00

ID

163652

Comment

Not suppose to be a deterrent, it for punishing those who commit crimes that warrant the death penalty.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-05-26T14:49:51-06:00

ID

163655

Comment

If the death penalty's purpose is not to be a deterrent, then what's the purpose of it existing?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2011-05-26T15:39:47-06:00

ID

163656

Comment

Golden- it's the penalty for doing the crime.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-05-26T15:50:26-06:00

ID

163657

Comment

I get that, but shouldn't it deter other people who think about murder? Many people who are so quick to see people executed often say that it should serve as a lesson to those who want to murder. I don't follow your logic.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2011-05-26T16:37:21-06:00

ID

163659

Comment

Golden- I don't think any law or penalty works very well as a deterrent,can you think of one? All you can do is punish the ones that break the law.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-05-26T17:19:39-06:00

ID

163666

Comment

Bubba, by your logic, everyone who commits a crime that qualifies for the death penalty should be killed when found guilty. Clearly, that doesn't happen in America. As the saying goes, no one on death row is rich. America metes out its justice incrementally by how much a person can spend on his or her defense. Lots of money? You get teams of specialty lawyers and jury experts, plus psychiatrists, forensic and other expert witnesses so that the accused doesn't get punished too harshly, if at all. No money? You get the real-estate lawyer appointed by the county who doesn't know enough to ask for a DNA test. I'm not saying that Simon is innocent; I'm not familiar with the case and can't make that call. Nor am I making a judgment regarding his "fitness" to be killed, or whether he knows right from wrong. Again, I have no way of knowing and won't make that call. My point is that we do not apply our laws or sentences with any true sense of fairness or equality. Furthermore, the system is not infallible, as proven over and over again by the numbers exonerated after their "fair" trials. Until we have a system that is both truly fair and infallible (or at least not as prone to error and corruption as it is now), the state—and by extension its citizens (we)—have no business killing anyone "in the name of justice."

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-05-27T11:45:29-06:00

ID

163667

Comment

To Golden...the length and severity of penalties, including execution, should deter 'normal' people from committing crimes. I would hope that the vast majority of human beings live their lives with this fear. I do not think, however, that the original intent of the death penalty is to deter but simply to eliminate that person from the population where no further harm can be done. In some way, this is a form of eugenics where those genes no longer co-mingle. Similarly that is why inmates are not allowed free-flowing contact with the populace. I believe, Ms. Mott, from reading Bubba's earlier posts that this is not what he is saying...your theoretical extension of his position is how you arrived at your first sentence. Your view of the American legal system is indeed cynical - but is there a perfect solution? I would hope that some lawyers who read this might chime in on this issue. And, for what it's worth, I agree with Mr. Lucas...this man should have been executed years ago.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-05-27T13:15:17-06:00

ID

163668

Comment

Darryl, what Bubba said is this: "it's the penalty for doing the crime." In other words, he's justifying killing Simon because "it's the penalty" for the crimes he committed. You can call my view of the legal system cynical if it makes you happy, but that doesn't change the facts. Our legal system is heavily skewed to favor those who can pay for the best defenses. Please demonstrate to me how that isn't true. Is there a perfect solution? Maybe not. But how, exactly, does that justify killing? Better we should put our efforts and treasure in figuring out and finding solutions to our enormous prison population. Why, in what Americans tout as the most civilized, most advanced and richest society on earth, is one out of every 100 adults in jail, prison or somewhere else in our multi-billion dollar prison "industry." You say that the "original intent of the death penalty is to deter but simply to eliminate that person from the population where no further harm can be done." Our prisons are perfectly designed to keep people behind bars forever, which goes a long way toward eliminating hardcore convicts from the population. So what, from that viewpoint, is the difference between life without parole and a death sentence? If cost comes into your argument, please think again. From mounting a death-penalty case to paying to defend numerous appeals to keeping death-row inmates in isolation with separate guards, the death penalty is a huge monetary drain for taxpayers. It is far more expensive than keeping someone behind bars for decades.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-05-27T13:50:22-06:00

ID

163669

Comment

Ms. Mott, in addition to what you have set forth, I would like to point out that the death penalty is not fairly applied regarding the race of the victims, even though white and black victims of homicide are nearly equal in numbers [about 6500 for both groups FBI UCR 2009 http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_02.html ], of those being executed, over 75% had been convicted for killing whites and only 15% for killing blacks. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf That fact sheet also documents the expense of the practice as well. The United States (with the exception of the 16 states that have ended the use of capital punishment) is the only advanced Western democracy that still executes prisoners. All of Western Europe, the rest of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand have all ended capital punishment.

Author

Macedonian

Date

2011-05-27T14:36:02-06:00

ID

163670

Comment

Ms. Mott - I don't believe that Bubba was engaging in the hyperbole that you foisted onto him. The death penalty is the most extreme punishment in a spectrum of available punishments that the accused may suffer. It is up to the judges/attorneys/juries that mete it out. I don't believe that I was making an argument - this is not a debate. I simply stated an opinion and don't have an agenda. But, I am confused...in your third paragraph you bemoan our expansive prison population then say, in your fourth, that a life sentence is appropriate. The simplest answer to your question about our prison population is to not imprison anyone. The logical parent of that is termed anarchy. Seeking some middle ground between that and our current system, flawed as it is, would be the continued value of our legislative and judicial branches of government. To paraphrase someone from somewhere, "...our constitution is a living and breathing document." Unfortunately, lifelong imprisonment in the "richest society on earth" is and will continue to be a multi-billion dollar enterprise. I'm not a lawyer, but if I were one and a defense lawyer that the city/county/state calls upon to defend the indigent, then I would take offense at your characterization of them.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-05-27T14:39:26-06:00

ID

163671

Comment

Ms. Mott - I don't believe that Bubba was engaging in the hyperbole that you foisted onto him. The death penalty is the most extreme punishment in a spectrum of available punishments that the accused may suffer. It is up to the judges/attorneys/juries that mete it out. I don't believe that I was making an argument - this is not a debate. I simply stated an opinion and don't have an agenda. But, I am confused...in your third paragraph you bemoan our expansive prison population then say, in your fourth, that a life sentence is appropriate. The simplest answer to your question about our prison population is to not imprison anyone. The logical parent of that is termed anarchy. Seeking some middle ground between that and our current system, flawed as it is, would be the continued value of our legislative and judicial branches of government. To paraphrase someone from somewhere, "...our constitution is a living and breathing document." Unfortunately, lifelong imprisonment in the "richest society on earth" is and will continue to be a multi-billion dollar enterprise. If cost is a consideration, the let's abandon the seemingly infinite numbers of appeals (the frivolousness notwithstanding) and set a limit. Three appeals and that's it. Works for baseball. I'm not a lawyer, but if I were one and a defense lawyer that the city/county/state calls upon to defend the indigent, then I would take offense at your characterization of them.

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-05-27T14:52:06-06:00

ID

163673

Comment

Darryl, I'm not sure why you're defending Bubba or putting words in his mouth. In my experience, he's perfectly capable of defending himself. If you think about for half a second, both of us could be completely wrong, so let's stop talking about what Bubba "might" be thinking, shall we? (Unless of course, you're really Bubba writing under a pseudonym.) Let me address a few of your $10 words: "Hyperbole" is an exaggeration not meant to be taken seriously (e.g., it's a million degrees out here!). Whatever Bubba's doing, it's not hyperbolic, nor am I "foisting" (forcing) anything on him. By definition, an "argument" is simply an expression of a view, or an exchange of viewpoints. You have a viewpoint, which you expressed. Thus you made an argument. So did I. How you got that I'm advocating anarchy (the absence of government or any authority) simply escapes me. I'm doing no such thing. Not imprisoning anyone is the solution to the millions we have in prison? Really? That's truly over-the-top binary (either/or) thinking if I've ever seen it. What I am advocating is a fresh look at an age-old problem: crime and punishment. Saying that some people deserve to spend their lives incarcerated does not negate the fact that America incarcerates far too many people for far too long, and for far too minor and victimless crimes. Smoking pot, for example, has had some folks behind bars for decades. It also does not negate the fact that our justice system is not applied equally (as regards the perpetrator or the victims) or that those with money can afford better defenses and, therefore, do not end up on death row. Our "prison/industrial" complex is a recent occurrence, about 30 years. The explosion in our prison population can be traced to two main factors: First is the GOP's relentless drive to privatize everything from kindergarten to our armed forces, based on the (faulty) logic that the free market can always do everything better and cheaper than the public sector. It started in earnest with Reagan in the 1980s and hasn't stopped, yet. The second factor is tough-on-crime and truth-in-sentencing legislation, which came into place around the same time. Since 1985, the U.S. prison population went from just over 200 per 100,000 adults to more than 500 per 100,000 in 2008, an increase of 250 percent. It is not in the prison industry's interest to lower the rate of incarceration, and the industry spends plenty of money lobbying for what has become our status quo. But, like everything else in life, it does not have to continue to be that way. Finally, I didn't characterize lawyers at all. ("The real-estate lawyer appointed by the county who doesn't know enough to ask for a DNA test" IS an example of hyperbole.) In Mississippi, lawyers can opt out of defending the indigent by writing a $200 annual check to the fund for public defenders (last I checked), and the majority of Mississippi lawyers do not take court-assigned cases. Those who do not opt out are frequently vastly inexperienced in the fields they are called upon to practice, especially in complex criminal cases. They know that better than anyone, even if you don't. Experienced death-penalty defense lawyers are few and far between. It's a difficult, often thankless job, and because of the nature of the crimes, they frequently take those cases on a pro-bono basis. They are doing God's work, as far as I'm concerned. And that IS a characterization.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2011-05-27T17:48:04-06:00

ID

163675

Comment

sigh...ok, whatever...

Author

Darryl

Date

2011-05-28T07:56:03-06:00

ID

163681

Comment

Ronni - your arguments and me remembering "The Life of David Gale" as well as other exoneration-after-conviction reports has helped me off the fence. The Death Penalty should be ended in Mississippi. I will also say that I believe the Profit Motive should be taken out of the "Prison Industry" all together. That is not something people should make money off of. I am also in favor of greatly reducing the amount of people in prison for 'victimless' crimes by simply decriminalizing most of them. For example, I would decriminalize most drug use, tax and regulate it like alcohol - but make drug use a penalty multiplier in other crimes. So that if you crash your vehicle while under the influence of a drug you get a citation for that (probably expand DUI to include any drug) in addition to any other citations - or, if you rob a store while (drunk,high,buzzed), you get longer jail time and higher fines.

Author

BobbyKearan

Date

2011-05-29T09:56:15-06:00