Date - Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Link - Gissendaner Execution
Summary - Eighteen years ago, Kelly Gissendaner was sentenced to death due to her role in her husband's death, convincing her boyfriend to kill him. On Wednesday, September 30, Gissendaner became the first woman since World War II to be executed by Georgia. Gissendaner's original execution was planned for February, but was rescheduled twice due to weather and to suspicion of the drug quality. In the past few days, Gissendaner's family and attorney's have filled appeals to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who rejected the appeal on Tuesday, saying that the execution was not against the Constitution. On Wednesday, Gissendaner's family filled three appeals to the Supreme Court, all of which were shut down. Even the Pope, with a letter written on his behalf, urged for the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute her death sentence; however, it was to no avail. Gissendaner's family and many others claim that she was a changed woman with many new values and morals. The picture above shows Gissendaner (center) having earned her theology certificate, often preaching to her fellow inmates.
Questions - On what grounds do you think Gissendaner appealed her decision? On what grounds did the courts reject her appeal? In rejecting her appeal, did courts follow a precedent or establish a new one? Do you think any of Gissendaner's civil rights or liberties were violated? Lastly, do you agree with the refusal of her appeal? Why or why not?
How noble of Georgia to apologize for its 1945 execution. Don't mean to be sarcastic, but the irony of the fact it's last female execution was wrong is just too much.
ReplyDeleteIn general I believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional, so yes, her civil rights and liberties were violated. The constitution says no cruel and unusual punishment, and I believe being put to death when you have potential to change and become a better person is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should not have rejected it because without taking the other side into consideration, you're killing a potentially changed woman. Not to say she shouldn't stay in prison, she should, but she shouldn't be put to death
ReplyDeleteShe was appealing on the grounds that execution by lethal injection was unconstitutional under the 8th amendment that provides for protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The courts, I believe, rejected her appeal due to the precedent set by Baze v Rees, where it was ruled that lethal injection was a humane way of execution. In regards to her rights, the 5th amendment reads, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The framers intended it to be legal for the deprivation of life with due process of law, so no, her rights were not violated. Her appeal was based on the lethal injection being "cloudy", which doesn't violate any constitutional right. I agree with the refusal of another appeal as the basis for which did not hold much substance.
ReplyDeleteThis is just personal, but I think the death penalty is a little much for a second degree murder that she didn't even commit. However, in my opinion life in jail without any chance of parole is usually enough for most criminals that receive the death penalty. In my opinion, it's a more humane way to take someone's life while still letting them survive. So I do believe that her killing was unconstitutional, especially with the progress she had made in the meantime.
ReplyDeleteThe court appealed on the grounds that she was a changed women and that the death penalty was unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th amendment. The courts rejected her appeal because in Gregg v Georgia they decided that the death penalty was not a cruel and unusual punishment. In addition there is nothing about a woman being changed, she still committed the crime. This did not establish a new precedent, it continued off of the old ones because she was not granted life. Her civil rights or liberties were not being violated because she did commit a crime. Also the punishment was not cruel. In my opinion, this is a fine solution. The death penalty is better than a life in prison. Lethal injection is quite humane, as said in Baze v Rees.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the courts had every right to reject her appeals as they weren't particularly compelling in the first place and that none of her rights were ever violated throughout the ordeal. The Gregg v Georgia case clearly stated that the concept and procedure of the death penalty were neither particularly cruel nor unusual. On one hand, I believe that the death penalty sentence was a fine option in her case but I also cannot help but think that life in prison is a much harsher, more preferable punishment for someone who intentionally assisted the murder suspect in a homicide.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner appealed to the court on the grounds that lethal injection is unconstitutional because it is a cruel and unusual punishment, to which I completely agree. However, the court rejected her appeal because of the precedents set by Gregg v. Georgia and Baze v. Rees. I think that her liberties were violated because she was denied due process of law. Since she was sentenced to death 18 years ago, which may have been a just sentence back then, she deserved to appeal her case to the court once more, which could have noticed the severity of the sentencing and promptly changed it to fit her crime.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner appealed on the grounds of personal reform and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. She claimed she was a changed woman who turned to religion, and that she had helped many other inmates on their path to reform. She also tried to argue that since the drugs were of questionable quality, it should be considered "cruel and unusual" to kill her using those same drugs. Both the Georgia Supreme Court and SCOTUS rejected these claims because corrections officials “were cautious and took steps to avoid a substantial risk of serious harm.” They also claimed her personal reform wasn't enough. In denying her, the courts followed the precedent already set that the death penalty was fine and constitutional. None of her civil rights or liberties were violated; lethal injection isn't a cruel way to go, nor is it unusual, as humans have had death penalties for as long as civilization had existed. Yes, I agree with the denial of her stay. If the courts found that lethal injection was not unconstitutional, and that she had not met the objective criteria defined in Gregg v. Georgia, then there is no legal reason she should not be executed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner appealed to the court on the grounds that lethal injection is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the 8th amendment. I believe that the death penalty for second degree murder is extremely excessive, though. Many first degree murderers do not even receive that cruel of punishment, so the fact that she was sentenced to death over this crime is irrational. The fact that she says she changed should have influenced the courts decision. If she truly helped others and changed herself through the penal system, she should been able to prove that to the court and have her punishment lessened.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner appealed to the court on the grounds of her self improvement as well as arguing against cruel and unusual punishment. The court rejected her saying that the execution was constitutional following a precedent that was set in the 70's after Gregg v Georgia. Because she was sentenced to death 18 years ago, i do believe she should be retried and the progress she's made be examined. Her sentence may have made sense at the time, but 18 years later there may be a reexamination of the case to find a more suitable punishment.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner had appealed to the courts on the grounds that the death penalty, the punishment which she was sentenced, was a form of cruel and unusual punishment; something citizens are protected from due to the 8th amendment. The courts rejected her appeals on the grounds that the death penalty is constitutional, even in her case. By doing so, the court was referring to an already set precedent, known as stare decisis. The precedent they followed was set in Gregg v. Georgia, allowing the death penalty with certain limitations/restrictions. I do not think that any of her civil rights or liberties were violated. There was no type of discrimination towards her, and no wrong doing on the governments behalf. She was just unfortunate enough to receive the death penalty in court.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner's sentence to the death penalty was irrational, and out of date. I do not think that having the death penalty for a second degree murder 18 years ago is considered constitutional. Even if she was to spend the rest of her life in prison, it would still be a better option. The Supreme Court ruled with a precedent that was set many years ago in Gregg v. Georgia that ruled that the death penalty was constitutional.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGissender appealed on the grounds that she did not commit the actual murder and that she was a changed person. The court rejected her appeals on the grounds that her execution would not violate the Constitution. The court did not establish any precedent in this decision as they did not even hear her appeal, although they should have considering the conditions of this case. I believe Gissender's civil liberties were violated as she could not receive due process as an appeal case could have changed her sentence given she was a changed person. I also disagree with the refusal of her appeal as she seemed to be a changed person. Makes you wonder why they even bother to call them "correctional facilities".
ReplyDeleteGissender and her family appealed on the grounds of personal reform. The court rejected the appeals ruling the execution was constitutional. I understand the denial as there was not much backing. If I supported capital punishment at all, I may have supported the decision. I however, absolutely disagree with incarceration, let alone being put to death. It is some of the most backwords and idiot things our country does. There is justification for detaining someone for life ( if they are a serious threat to others). There is no sense in the thinking that since we value life so much, we need to kill people who take life away from others.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGissender appealed on the basis that the administration of lethal drug injection as death penalty was unconstitutional, as it violated the 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause of the 8th amendment. Her personal story of becoming a born again Christian also was part of her appeal brief. Under Gregg v GA, which ended the de facto moratorium set in Furman v GA, the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty was not a violation of the 8th and 14th amendment. The Court followed the precedent already set. Also, the previous delays in her execution showed that the administrators of the injection“were cautious and took steps to avoid a substantial risk of serious harm.”Although she has proclaimed that she has changed, Gissender is still expected to be punished for the crime she committed. The term 'cruel and unusual punishment' is subjective and unresistant to societal standards. Some might argue that contemporary times deem the death penalty to now be unconstitutional. I do think it is strange that she is given death penalty for a "crime she didnt personally commit", as most dealth penalties are given to first hand murder. However, it could be argued that the life sentence given to the boyfriend is worse than the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner appealed on the grounds that she is a changed women and that she was not the one actually committing the crime. The courts rejected her appeal on the grounds that execution is constitutional (not cruel and unusual punishment). The court was referring to the set precedent of stare decisis. In my opinion, I believe that her rights were not violated in any way. The government justly treated her. However, I believe that the court should not have sentenced Gissendaner the death penalty but instead a good amount of time in jail.
ReplyDeleteI think in this case, the death penalty might have been excessive as there are people who committed much more heinous that did not get the death penalty. However, I believe that the death penalty should be put into use more for the people that truly don't deserve a second chance. There is huge overcrowding in prison's and executing some who without a doubt committed murder in the first degree should be executed
ReplyDeleteGissendaner was appealing on the grounds that the death penalty is unconstitutional. The court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the execution is constitutional according to Gregg vs. Georgia. The court followed a precedent that is not really just which is not fair to Gissendaner. Because the court is following a precedent, I do not think her right is violated. I do not think what she has done was a crime need death penalty.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner was appealing on the grounds that the death penalty is unconstitutional. The court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the execution is constitutional according to Gregg vs. Georgia. The court followed a precedent that is not really just which is not fair to Gissendaner. Because the court is following a precedent, I do not think her right is violated. I do not think what she has done was a crime need death penalty.
ReplyDeleteGissendaner appealed for the her decision in order to prove to the jury that death by “cruel and unusual punishment” from a drug that is considered controversial. Also, she wanted to prove that she was making strides by changing her morals and values; earning a theology certificate and to continue to follow a positive path of being ethical. The courts rejected her appeal and ignored that she changed as a person by following the precedent set by Gregg v. Georgia. The case was set by stare decisis and concluded that the drug is not proven unconstitutional. Personally, I disagree with the appeal because this case highlights the problems of a set precedent and how it allow for erroneous decisions to occur.
ReplyDelete